Environmanut FT ni..i ;i:m
EPA 731-R-05-001
January 2005
REPORT ON 2004 AenvrnE
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP BRANCH
WHAT s INSIDE
Introduction 2
Voluntary Partnerships 4
PESP 4
Formation / Membership 4
Strategies / Champions / Liaisons 5
Members 6
Activities (by Sector)
Antimicrobials 7
Commercial & Residential Pest
C ontrol 8
Crop Consultants 11
Environmental Organizations 12
Field & Row Crops 13
Food Processors 15
Government 16
Landscaping / Turf 18
Non-Tree Fruits 20
Organic 22
Rights-of-Way 22
Schools 25
Technology Transfer 27
Tree Fruit & Nuts 29
Vegetables 32
Strategic Agricultural Initiative 33
IPM in Schools Initiative 36
Lawns & the Environment Initiative 37
Avian Environmental Indicators 39
Assistance Agreements 39
N ational Foundation for
IPM Education 40
American Farmland Trust 42
Biopesticides Demonstration Project 44
Regional Initiative PESP Grants 45
Center for Agricultural Partnerships 48
Economic Development
Administration of Hawaii 49
Communications 50
ESB Communications Programs 50
Collaboration 51
PESP Evaluation 51
Conclusions 52
PESP Resources 53
Disclaimer 53
Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) regulates the use of pesticides for
both agricultural and non-agricultural
purposes under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
The law requires EPA to review uses of a
new pesticide before it is allowed to be sold
and used for pest control in the United
Statesa process we call registration. At the
same time, the law requires EPA to review
the uses of older pesticides through
processes called special review and re-
registration.
One cannot argue that regulation plays
an important role in safeguardinghealth
and the environment from potential
dangers posed by the use of pesticides.
However, to further reduce the risk
associated with the use of pesticides, OPP
has greatly expanded its collaborative
programs in environmental stewardship
over the last ten years.
In 1992, the National Integrated Pest
Management (TPM) Forum identified the
lack ofnational commitment to IPM as the
number one constraint to its further
adoption. IPM is the coordinated use of
pest and environmental information with
available pest control methods to prevent
unacceptable levels of pest damage by the
most economical means and with the least
possible hazard to people, property, and the
environment.
In 1994, EPA developed the Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Program
(PESP) as a voluntary public-private
partnership to reduce pesticide risk. PESP
advocates the adoption of IPM practices
and promotes the use of biopesticides.
The first ten years of PESP were character-
ized by rapid growth, experimentation, and
innovation in which it evolved into a
mature, established program. It is the
Agency's premier program dedicated to
voluntary partnerships for reducing
pesticide risk.
In 2003, EPA recognized the need to
further expand its collaborative pesticide
risk reduction programs and created the
Environmental Stewardship Branch, located
in the Biopesticides and Pollution Preven-
tion Division. In 2004, the Branch
provided leadership, guidance, and resources
for a variety of voluntary partnership
programs that promote IPM and the
reduction ofpesticide risks.
Through the Strategic Agricultural
Initiative, EPA is implementingmodel
agricultural partnerships to demonstrate
and facilitate the adoption of pest manage-
ment practices that provide growers with a
reasonable transition away from the highest
risk pesticides.
By introducing IPM techniques to our
nation's schools, EPA is reducing pesticide
risks to millions of children nationwide.
Through its participation in the Lawns
and the Environment Initiative, the Agency
is promoting responsible lawn and
landscapingpractices that will enhance the
value and benefits of residential landscapes
while protecting human health and the
environment.
EPA also provides direct fun ding to
organizations that support the goals of
promoting IPM and reducing the risk of
pesticides.
This report tells the story of these and
many other voluntary partnership efforts to
reduce pesticide risk, each partnership's
accomplishments, and the challenges faced
by EPA and its stakeholders.
EPA will continue to provide leader-
ship, coordination, and resources (as
available) to further enhance our ability
to achieve our goals in the promotion of
environmental stewardship, adoption of
IPM, and reduction in the risks posed by
pesticides.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Following a tradition established in
2003, EPA's is publishing its second
annual report on the the major accom-
plishments of EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs and our partners in the area of
environmental stewardship over a single
year.
This 2004 report provides an overview
of the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program and other voluntary programs
managed either solely by OPP or jointly
with EPA's regional offices.
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
BRANCH
EPA's voluntary pesticide environmen-
tal stewardship programs are coordinated by
the Environmental Stewardship Branch
(ESB), located in the Office of Pesticide
Programs' Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (BPPD). ESB is
dedicated to reducing pesticide risk
through collaborative and other non-
regulatory means such as:
providing leadership, guidance, and
resources for voluntary partnership
programs nationwide that promote
integrated pest management and the
reduction of pesticide risks;
promoting projects,
activities and approaches
that result in measurable
outputs, as defined by the
Government Perfor-
mance and Results Act
(GPRA), including those
that result in improve-
ments to human health
and the environment;
identifying and addressing
key issues through the
promotion of synergies
and partnerships between
organizations that share
common goals;
keepingexternal partners
informed of Agency
programs and policies; and
promoting the adoption
and use of biological
pesticides (biopesticides)
and reduced risk pesticides.
VOLUNTARY PARTNERSHIP TO
REDUCE PESTICIDE RISK
ESB is responsible for several
innovative, public-private partnerships.
Following are some of the major efforts
underway to reduce pesticide risk
without regulations:
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program
PESP is a voluntary partnership
between EPA and the pesticide user
community to reduce the risks from the use
of agricultural and non-agricultural
pesticides. Members set goals for pesticide
risk reduction, develop strategies to achieve
said goals, and report on their progress each
year.
Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI)
SAI is a program in OPP involving
EPA's ten Regions. SAI staff work to
demonstrate and facilitate the transition
to reduced risk farm management
practices.
IPM in Schools Initiative
Through OPP's Pesticides and Schools
Team, EPA is encouraging school officials to
adopt IPM practices to reduce children's
exposure to pesticides.
Lawns and the Environment
Initiative
EPA serves on the steering committee
of this initiative, which is designed to
encourage environmentally responsible
lawn and landscaping practices.
Environmental Indicators Project
OPP and Region 5 staff are working
together to develop a set of effective
environmental indicators using changes in
bird populations.
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS TO
DEMONSTRATE IPM / BIOPESTI-
CIDES
To encourage growers and other
pesticide users to practice IPM and/or use
biopesticides, ESB works cooperatively with
other organizations through the following
assistance agreements:
National Foundation for IPM
Education
N FIPME supports PESP and, through
a series of cooperative agreements, has
VLRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP BRANCH ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
Branch Chief
Staff
Stephen Morrill Manages ESB staff and oversees pollution prevention activities
Edward Brandt Lawns & Environment Initiative
Avian Environmental Indicators Project
PESP Evaluation
Sector Leader for: Landscaping/Turf & Commercial/Residential Pest Control
Frank Ellis PESP Webmaster
N ational Foundation for IPM Education C ooperative Agreement Project Officer
Sector Leader for: Food Processors
Sherry Glick PESP Liaison Training
IPM in Schools & OPP Schools Workgroup
Sector Leader for: Environmental Organizations, Schools & Trade Associations
Project Officer for: Center for Agricultural Partnerships Cooperative Agreement
School Technical Resource Centers Grants
Michael Glikes PESP Communications including the PESP Update
Sector Leader for: Field/Row C rop s
Cheryl Greene PESP News Exchange
Sector Leader for: Tree Fruit & Nuts
Steve Hopkins Sector Leader for: Crop Consultants & Government
Diana Home Biopesticide DemonstrationProject with USDA/IR4
Sector Leader for: Non-Tree Fruits & Organic
Regina Langton Strategic Agricultural Initiative
American Farmland Trust Cooperative Agreement Project Officer
Sector Leader for: Vegetables
Glenn Williams Sector Leader for: Rights-of-Way & Technology Transfer
Page 2
-------
funded projects to facilitate technology
transfer and significantly reduce
pesticide risk.
American Farmland Trust Center for
Agriculture in the Environment
This grant promotes agricultural
pollution prevention with emphasis on
demonstratingpesticiderisk reduction and
IPM techniques to commodity groups.
Biopesticides Demonstration Project
EPA and U SDA' s Interregional
Research Project #\ jointly administer
and fund competitive grants that
promote the use of biopesticides as risk
reduction tools in mainstream agricul-
tural production.
Regional Initiative PESP G r ant s to
States and Tribes
This grant supports research, public
education, training, monitoring, demon-
strations, and studies that advance pesticide
risk reduction. By practicing IPM and
transitioningfrom conventional to
biopesticides, growers demonstrate that
they are committed to environmental
stewardship and reducingpesticide risk.
Center for Agricultural Partnerships
ESB has a cooperative agreement with
the Center to increase the adoption of
innovations in agriculture that reduce
pesticide risk . Risk reduction is achieved by
following a blueprint developed under this
agreement in 2002. The Center initiated
pilot projects to demonstrate how PESP
sector leaders, liaisons, and members can
effectively use the blueprint to create large-
scale, agricultural and environmental
improvements.
Economic Development Administration
of Hawaii
This grant supports demonstration
projects that accelerate the commercializa-
tion of biotechnology and, thereby, reduce
pesticide use in tropical agricultural
production.
COMMUNICATION TO SPREAD THE
WORD
ESB provides information about its
voluntary partnership programs through
the following communications services:
PESP Website
The site provides an overview and
history of PESP, membership lists,
contact information for members and
their liaisons, all issues of the PESP
Update, member strategies, and grants
information.
PESP Update
The Update is a quarterly newsletter
mailed to 1,300 addressees, including
PESP members; select staff at EPA,
USD A and FDA; environmental
organizations; commodity groups; and
interested individuals.
PESP News Exchange
The Exchange is an electronic
specialty news and alert service focused
on the advancement and exchange of
information related to environmental
stewardship partnership activities.
National Schools Update
The Schools Update is a quarterly
electronic news service that features
articles on IPM in schools.
COORDINATION FOR CONSISTENCY
Keeping track of other environmen-
tal stewardship activities and programs
within and outside of EPA
is also the responsibility of
the Environmental Steward-
ship Branch. Thus, ESB
staff serve on a variety of
steering committees,
commissions, and projects
that share the goals of
environmental stewardship
and reducing the risk of
pesticides.
Office of Pesticide
Programs
ESB staff are respon-
sible for keeping OPP staff
and managers informed of
environmental stewardship
activities. This is accom-
plished through briefings,
meetings, conferences,
participation in
workgroups and various
communications.
EPA
EPA has many voluntary programs
that share OPP's and ESB's goal of
environmental stewardship. ESB staff
track these programs and share valuable
insights and information.
External Programs
Many programs and initiatives external
to EPA share the Agency's environmen-
tal stewardship goals. Whether coordi-
nated by other federal agencies or non-
governmental organizations, ESB staff
attend meetings, review documents, and
distribute materials to participants of
these other programs when appropriate.
EVALUATION FOR SUCCESS
Excellence means never being
satisfied with the status quo. In 2004,
ESB, workingwith EPA's Office of
Policy, Economics, and Innovation,
completed an evaluation of PESP. The
evaluation provided valuable informa-
tion on which program elements have
made PESP successful and which
elements need improvement or redesign.
The results and recommendations
provided by the evaluation were
analyzed by ESB staff and used to
prepare the 2005 PESP work plan.
PESP
TViv MEMBOU
EPA A-WJUUJS IJJU.MS KJK
IVn.ftt Flttl UIs THt WlVJi (.f- IHjLLL\ATUtCl
-------
VOLUNTARY PARTNERSHIPS
PKTICIDE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
The Pesticide Environmental Steward-
ship Program is a voluntary program that
forms partnerships with pesticide users to
reduce the health and environmental risks
associated with pesticide use. The goal of
PESP is to reduce pesticide risk in both
agricultural andnonagricultural settings.
While government regulation can
reduce pesticide risk, PESP is guided by the
principle that, even in the absence of
additional regulatory mandates, the
informed actions of pesticide users reduce
risk even further. Based on this principle,
membership in the program is completely
voluntary.
By joining, organizations pledge that
environmental stewardship is an integral
part of pest control, and they commit to
working toward pesticide practices that
reduce risk to humans and the environ-
ment. Members take a strategic approach to
risk reduction and undertake specific,
measurable activities toward achieving their
risk reduction goals.
EPA recognizes the need to protect
public health and the food supply with
efficient, cost-effective pest control. In our
role as a partner, the Agency promotes the
adoption of innovative, alternative pest
control practices that reduce pesticide risk.
FORMATION
The National Integrated Pest Manage-
ment Forum, sponsored by EPA in June
1992, identified the lack of a national
commitment to IPM as the number one
constraint to its further adoption. In
September 1993, EPA, U SDA, and FDA
pledged to have 75% of the U. S. agricultural
acreage under IPM by 2000 and to reduce
the use of pesticides.
The federal agencies held a stakeholder
workshop in February of 1994 to gather
their ideas, suggestions, and concerns about
reducing pesticide use. A set of principles
emerged which were used to guide develop-
ment of an appropriate program. The
guidingprinciples included:
a focus on risk reduction to humans and
the environment, not merely use
reduction, which may or may not lead to
risk reduction:
inclusion of agricultural andnon-
Page4
agricultural use sites.
fostering demonstration, adoption, and
commercialization of alternatives,
technologies, and practices that reduce
use and risk.
leadership of the federal government by
example with respect to its own use
practices.
As a result of that meeting and the
precedingprinciples, EPA developed the
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program. In December 1994, EPA, USD A
and FDA issued a joint press release
announcing PESP and its first members.
MEMBERSHIP
Organizations with a commitment to
pesticide risk reduction are eligible to join
PESP either as Partners or Supporters.
Those that use pesticides or represent
pesticide users are eligible to become
PESP Partners. Organizations involved
with pesticide issues and which work with
pesticide users may join as PESP Support-
ers.
In addition to formally signing a
statement to support the goals of PESP,
Partners and Supporters are required to
write a strategy that describes their long-
term strategic approach to risk reduction
and annual, measurable activities to
achieve pesticide risk reduction.
Since its inception in 1994 with ten
charter members, PESP has grown to over
140 members.
Chart 1 presents the trend in member-
ship since the program's inception.
Chart 2 depicts the composition of
members by PESP sectors, which are
groupings ofmembers who share common
pesticide issues.
ChirM. Hcrnbirahip byYcor
1SC
1*
III
n.i.
Chart 2. Membership by Sector
Anliiricrobials
Schools
4%
vegetables
S%
Tree Fruit & NUts
11%
Crop Consutants
3%
Technology Transfer
10%
Organic
1%
Government
Schools
5%
Rights-of-Way
18%
Environment
Organizations
1%
Commercial^ Residential
Pest Control
8%
FieldJRow Crops
6%
Food Processors
3%
Landscaping/Turf
8%
-------
STRATEGIES
The PESP strategy process is intended
to help members adopt risk reduction
approaches in a consistent, goal-oriented
way.
In 2004, 75 strategies were submitted
(Chart 3). This represents a submission rate
of 50%, the highest rate since 2000.
As part of the assessment process, the
strategies were reviewed by liaisons, sector
leaders, and ESB management.
CHAMPIONS
Based on the strategies submitted in
2003, EPA recognized 13 members as PESP
Champions. Recognition was based on their
outstanding efforts towards promoting
integrated pest management and reducing
pesticide risk, and for their extraordinary
level of commitment to protecting human
health and the environment (Table 1).
LIAISONS
Each PESP member is provided an
EPA liaison, from the Office of Pesticide
Programs or an EPA Regional office.
The liaison works with the member to
provide information and assistance in
developing and implementing their strategy.
Liaisons are these organizations' single-
point customer service representative at
EPA. They provide information on EPA
activities, assist in developing the Strategy,
and provide information on funding
opportunities to support strategy imple-
mentation.
ESB staff coordinate liaison training
and PESP sector
leaders facilitate
pairingliaison
volunteers with
new members.
Over 130 EPA staff
have received liaison
training.
Chart3. Strategy Submissions
(strategies were not requested in 2001)
160
140
120
100
D Strategies
Members
TABLE 1. 2004 PESP CHAMPIONS
Almond Board of California
Aquila
Artichoke Research Association
Central Coast Vineyard Team
Fischer Environmental Services, Inc.
Gerber Products Company
Glades Crop Care, Inc
International Cut Flower Growers Association
IPM Institute of North America, Inc.
Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape Commission
New York Power Authority
U.S. Department ofDefense
U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee
Certificate of
Achievement
Prei-c rflrdlo
U.S. Hop Industry
Plant Protection Committee
For
Demonstrating Outstanding Efforts
Towards Risk
Reduction and Recognized As A
2004 PESP Champion
Page 5
-------
PESTICIDE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM MEMBERS IN 2004
Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center
All Service Pest Management, Inc.
Allegheny Power
Allied Biological, Inc.
Almond Board of California
American Assoc. of Pesticide Safety Educators
American Bird Conservancy Pesticides & Birds
Campaign
American Electric Power Service Corp.
American Mosquito Control Association
American Nursery and Landscape Assoc.
American Peanut Council
American Pest Management, Inc.
Aquila
Aqumix, Inc.
Arizona Public Service
Artichoke Research Association
Association of Applied IPM Ecologists
Association of Public Health Laboratories
Auburn University -Dept. of Entomology &
Plant Pathology
Audubon International Cooperative
Sanctuary Program
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association
Bio-Integral Resource Center
Brook field Zoo
California Citrus Research Board
California Dried Plum Board
California Fresh Carrot Advisory Board
California Lettuce Research Board
California Melon Research Advisory Board
California Pear Advisory Board
California Pear Growers
California Pistachio Commission
CaliforniaTomato Commission
Campbell Soup Company
Center for Resource Management
Central Coast Vineyard Team
Central Maine Power Company
Central Vermont Public Service
Corporation
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative
Chicago Parks District, Division of
Conservatories
City of Davis (CA)
Clemson University Public Service &
Agriculture
Conectiv
Cranberry Institute
Crooked River Weed Management Area
Cuy ahoga County Board of Health
Del Monte
Duke Power Company
Edison Electric Institute
Energy Association ofPennsylvania
Environmental Resource Center
Farm & Home Environmental
Page 6
Management Programs
Fischer Environmental Services Inc.
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
General Mills, Inc.
GeorgiaPeach Council
Gerber Products Company
Glades Crop Care, Inc.
Golf Course Superintendents Association of
America
Griggs County (ND) 319 Water Quality
Project
Hawaii Area Wide Fruit Fly Pest
Management Program
Hawaii Banana Industry Association
Hawaii Papaya Industry Association
Hawaiian Electric Company
Highlands Soil & Water
Hood River Grower-Shipper Association
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
International Cut Flower Growers Assoc.
IPM Institute of North America, Inc.
Kansas Corn Growers Association
Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Assoc.
Kyrene Elementary School
Lake County Winegrape Commission
Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape
Commission
Louisiana Pest Management Association
Low Input Viticulture and Enology of
Oregon
Maine Integrated Pest Management Council
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Massachusetts IPM Council
Massey Services, Inc.
Michigan Asparagus Research, Inc.
Michigan Cherry Committee
Mint Industry Research Council
Monroe County School Corporation
N ational Air Duct Cleaners Association
National Alliance of Independent Crop
Consultants
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Grape Cooperative, Inc.
National Grid
National Pest Management Association
National Pesticide Stewardship Alliance
National Potato Council
New England Fruit Consultants
New England Vegetable & Berry Growers
Association
New York City Board of Education
New York Power Authority
New York State Electric & Gas
North American Pollinator Protection
Campaign
Northeast Utilities
Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
Northwest Alfalfa Seed Growers Assoc.
Organic Golf Maintenance and Design
Organic Materials Review Institute
Organic Trade Association
Pacific Coast Producers
Pacific Gas & Electric
Parrot Jungle Island
Peach tree Pest Control Co, Inc.
Pear Pest Management Research Fund
Pebble Beach Company
PennsylvaniaPower& light
Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association
PEPCO
Pineapple Growers Assoc. ofHawaii
Professional Lawn Care Association of
America
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Progressive Agriculture Foundation
Rainforest Alliance-ECO o.k. Program
Reliable Pest Control
ReMetrixLLC
Sanitary Pest Control Company
SarasotaCo. Government Public Works
Sonoma Co. Grape Growers Association
Southwest School IPM Technical
Resource Center
Steritech Group, Inc.
Summit County Combined General Health
District
Sunkist Growers
Sun-Maid Growers of California
Tennessee Valley Authority
Texas Pest Management Association
U.S. Apple Association
U.S. CanolaAssociation
U.S. Department ofDefense
U.S. GolfAssociation
U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Commit-
tee
U.S. PublicHealth Service
U.S. Sugar Corporation
University of Florida Cooperative Extension
Service
University ofWisconsin -Center for
Integrated Agricultural Systems
VA, MD, & DE Association of Electric
Cooperatives
Vegetation Managers, Inc.
Walnut Marketing Board
Walt Disney World Resort
Washington State Dept. of Agriculture
Washington State Dept. of Transportation
Wayne's Environmental Services, Inc.
Winter Pear Control Committee
Wisconsin Apple Growers Association
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
-------
PESP ACTIVITIES
In 2004, PESP members collaborated with EPA on a wide range of activities to further the adoption of IPM
and achieve meaningful reductions in pesticide risk.
Many engaged in technical assistance, training, and outreach. Some researched solutions to pest problems for particular
crops or structural pests that offered anew alternative to conventional, chemical pesticides. Others took the next step of
demonstrating the efficacy of such alternatives in the field and evaluating their benefits in terms of reduced use of
conventional pesticides such as organophosphates.
The following report of these activities is organized by PESP sector. In most cases, the activities listed were reported as accomplishments
in members' 2004 strategy documents, hence, the activities actually took place in 2003.
For agricultural sectors, EPA provides a context for its discussion on the adoption of IPM and safer practices by includinginformation on
the use of biopesticides and reduced-risk pesticides. These summary statistics are based on data reported to EPA by Doane Marketing
Research, Inc., over an eight year period (1995 -2002).
These data give a picture of how pesticide use is gradually changing as biopesticides and other alternatives find greater acceptance in the
marketplace. For the purpose of brevity and because the data are proprietary, the sector sections do not include data on pesticide use for specific
commodities.
ANTIMICROBIALS SECTOR
OVERVIEW
This sector, established in 2003, has
been recruiting charter members from key
associations and organizations which are
active in the technical and scientific arenas
related to antimicrobials pesticides.
These arenas encompass a wide variety
of industries, including heating, ventilation
and air-conditioning systems, antifoulant
paints, food sanitization, mold and mildew
and related homebuildingissues, heavy duty
wood preservatives, and public health
laboratory testing.
Antimicrobial pesticides are used
almost everywhere. They are substances or
mixtures of substances used to destroy or
suppress the growth of harmful microor-
ganisms bacteria, viruses, or fungi on
Sector Leader: Susan Laing 703-308-0152
Organizations Invited to Join
American Wood-Preservers' Association
Association of American Railroads
Association of Public Health Laboratories
National Air Duct Cleaners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Food Processors Association
National Paint & Coatings Association
Treated Wood Council
inanimate objects and surfaces.
Antimicrobial products contain
about 275 different active ingredients
and are marketed as sprays, liquids,
concentrated powders, and gases.
Each year approximately one billion
dollars are spent on different types of
antimicrobial products. More than 5,000
antimicrobial products are currently
registered with EPA for sale in the U. S.
Antimicrobial pesticides have two
major uses: (1) to disinfect, sanitize, reduce,
or mitigate growth or development of
microbiological organisms; and (2) to
protect inanimate objects (e.g., floors and
walls), industrial processes or systems,
surfaces, water, or other chemical substances
from contamination, fouling, or deteriora-
tion caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi,
protozoa, algae, or slime.
Antimicrobial pesticides also act as
preserving agents in paints, metalworking
fluids, wood supports, and many other
products.
CHALLENGES
The challenge for the first year was to
recruit and train liaisons to work with
the new sector. This was successfully
accomplished in 2003-2004 with seven
new liaisons recruited from within
OPP's Antimicrobials Division.
The challenge for next year will be to
continue to recruit members and help them
develop meaningful strategies.
There is a great deal of excitement
related to the issues the industry is currently
facing. For example, wood preservatives,
particularly chromated copper arsenate
(CCA), mold, and anthrax are all high
profile areas and have commanded scientific
and media attention.
New protocols are being developed for
the treatment of bacteria (e.g., anthrax) and
viruses (e.g., monkey pox andNorwalk), and
for cleaningup the effects ofmold and
mildew.
Research on wood preservatives and
registering alternatives are also priority
issues.
Communicatingthe critical role that
antimicrobial pesticides play in EPA's
mission of protecting hum an health and
the environment is integral to all of the new
strategies under development for 2005.
The followingtwo organizations were
the sector's Charter Members:
Association of Public Health
Laboratories safeguards the public's
health by strengthening public health
laboratories in the U.S. and around the
world. In collaboration with members,
they advance laboratory systems and
practices, and promote policies that
support healthy communities.
(Continued on p. 8)
Page 7
-------
(Antimicrobials - from p. 7)
National Air Duct Cleaners Associa-
tion is a non-profit trade association
dedicated to the progression of the
heating, ventilation and air condition-
ing (HVAC) hygiene industry. Its
mission is to lead the domestic and
international industry in standard
setting, research, information
dissemination, and the promotion of
ethical practices. The Association
has submitted a PESP strategy that
was approved by EPA.
The folio wing organizations were also
invited to join the Antimicrobials Sector
and are considering joining:
Association of American Railroads
members include the major freight
railroads in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico, as well as Amtrak, all users
of treated wood. Railroads are a major
user of creosote for treatment in ties
(70%), which is a wood preservative
registered by EPA.
National Association of Home
Builders, the trade association that
promote policies that make housing a
national priority, assists its members,
the housing industry, and the public
at large. It deals with issues related to
treated wood as well as the control of
mold in residential settings.
National Food Processors Association
represents the $500 billion food
processingindustry on scientific and
public policy issues involving food
safety, food security, nutrition, technical
and regulatory matters and consumer
affairs. The association's interests
include sanitation and disinfection in
food processingplants, as well as
consumer safety issues.
Treated Wood Council is thenational
industry trade association representing
the pressure-treated wood industry
throughout the U.S. Member
companies work to conserve forest
resources, preserve the environment,
and extend the life of wood products
through the manufacture of pressure-
treated wood.
PageS
COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL PEST CONTROL SECTOR
OVERVIEW
The Commercial & Residential Pest
Control Sector consists ofpest control
companies and the trade associations that
represent them.
Organizations in this sector provide
structural and general pest control in
commercial buildings and residences. They
also control
mosquitoes
and other
outdoor
pests
common to
the urban and
suburban
environment.
Com-
mercial and
residential
pest control
members deal
mostly with
insecticides and rodenticides. These partners
favor approaches to risk reduction that
of herbicides and fungicides. Overall,
residential control accounts for 65% and
non-residential the remaining 35%.
CHALLENGES
While members have accomplished
a great deal in the past ten years, there
Sector Leader: Ed Brandt 703-308-8699
Members Liaisons
All Service Pest Management, Inc. DianaHorne 703-308-8367
American Mosquito Control Association Kevin Sweeney 703-305-5063
American Pest Management, Inc. Bonnie Adler 703-308-8523
Fischer Environmental Services Inc. Glenn Williams 703-308-8287
Louisiana Pest Management Association Kable Davis 703-306-0415
Massey Services, Inc. Tracey Hayes 703-308-9358
National Pest Management Association Kevin Sweeney 703-305-5063
Peachtree Pest Control Co., Inc. David Donaldson 703-308-9546
Reliable Pest Control David Donaldson 703-308-9546
Sanitary Pest Control Company Glenn Williams 703-308-8287
Steritech Group, Inc. SusanneCerrelli 703-308-8077
Walt Disney World Resorts Candy Brassard 703-305-6598
Wayne's Environmental Services, Inc. Tracy White 703-308-0042
remain substantial opportunities for the
adoption of IPM practices, reduced
toxicity, targeted pesticides, and better
operator training and education.
Considering that growingurban
populations and densities increase pest
pressures, this sector is a strong candidate
for additional efforts that enhance pesticide
risk reduction.
Typical risk-reduction practices used in
this industry include targeting pesticide
applications; removing food and habitat;
usingbaits, traps, and lower toxicity
pesticides; and improvinghousekeeping
practices.
Effectiveness, cost, and human and
environmental safety are the most
important considerations for consumers
making purchasing decisions.
reduce exposure to organophosphates,
carbamates, and synthetic pyrethroids,
particularly indoors. Principal strategies
include prevention, monitoring and
product formulation usingbaits. Sector
members deal with important public
health pests including cockroaches,
mosquitoes and rodents.
According to Kline and Company
(1997), there are 14,251 structural pest
control companies in the U.S., and over half
of the firms are located in the southern U. S.
Insect control accounts for 95% of
sales, rodenticides (3%), avicides (1%), and
the remaining 1% come from a combination
Thbolium confusum
-------
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
Members in this sector are address-
ing these challenges by disseminating
information to applicators and other
technicians through
workshops, training
sessions, fact sheets,
and other means.
Members
emphasize outreach
and education to the
general public through
Websites, information
exchange, newsletters,
and the public media.
Members have reduced
the use of injected
dusts and foggers,
in creased use of
termite baits in place of barrier treatments,
and reduced the use of py rethroid dusts
and sprays for structural pests.
In mosquito control, members made
progress in aerial spray programs through
the calibration of aircraft and ground spray
booms andby optimizingcorrelations of
droplet size andlarvicide efficacy.
The activities and accomplishments of
members follow:
All Service Pest Management, Inc.
promotes structural IPM by focusing
on bilingual, consumer education.
American Mosquito Control
Association (AMCA) is a national
professional organization reducing
pesticide risk by researching and
advocating IPM practices for
mosquito control. AMCA
encourages source reduction
techniques, bio-rational larvicides,
surveillance techniques, and targeting
mosquitoes with Global Positioning
Systems (GPS).
AMCA encourages its members to
joinPESP, and it
documents national
progress in pesticide
risk reduction such as:
an aerial spray
program that
calibrates aircraft and
ground spray booms
and optimizes
droplet size/larvicide
efficacy correlations;
trainingworkshops for applicators;
certification of public health pest control
applicators;
outreach programs for homeowners to
reduce mosquito breeding sites and
exposure to
mosquito-
borne
pathogens;
extensive
surveillance
of vector
populations
for West Nile
and other
viruses to
better target
control
efforts.
American Pest Management, Inc., a
structural pest control firm, is committed
to the use of IPM practices such as
structural repair (e.g., caulking and
screening) and habitat modification (e.g.,
sanitation) as first lines of defense to
control pests.
American Pest Management is one of
agrowinggroup of companies changing
the paradigm from scheduled spray ing to
a more information-intensive IPM
approach which includes monitoring for
pests and then choosing ex elusion,
sanitation, and reduced risk products
(e.g., traps and baits) to manage them.
Activities included:
phasing-out chlorpyriphos products in its
store;
convertingcommercial customers
including apartment managers and food
service operators from liquid insecticides
to reduced risk formulations.
Fischer Environmental Services, Inc. is
recognized as a 2004 PESP Champion.
Their 2004 strategy seeks to reduce the
total amount of pesticides used while
improving efficacy.
Fischer's
multi-tiered
approach included
the following
activities:
reducing or
eliminating all
broadcast applica-
tions in favor of
more precise,
targeted applications;
targetingresidential structures for
environmental modification;
increasing customer awareness of IPM
concepts;
increasing technician trainingin exclusion-
ary practices;
eliminating the use of chemicals with a
higher warninglevel than Caution on the
label;
reducingtotal volume of active ingredient
used in structures.
Louisiana Pest Management Association
joined PESP in 2004. They are pursuing
along-term goal ofreducingpesticide
use and risk whilemaintainingefficacy.
This is being accomplished by increasing
education and training of their members
on the principles, benefits and
advantages of IPM, while informing
consumers of the beneficial changes to
their services and environment.
Massey Services, Inc. uses the safest,
most effective procedures and
technologies available to manage
pests. When pesticides are a part of
the solution, they evaluate each
situation to ensure the least negative
impact on employees, customers, and
the environment. Massey:
screened and purchased reduced risk
products for use in service calls,
preferringto use only Toxicity Category
III and IV products;
reduced use ofinjected dusts and
foggers, and increased use of baits;
instituted a change from monthly to
quarterly service cycle;
disseminated outreach through fact
sheets, web site, and reports of pest-
conducive conditions on lawns for
prospective clients;
used termite baits in preference to barrier
treatments on existing structures;
instituted aprogram for termite control
in new construction usingborates and
baits.
National Pest Management
Association met with EPA to discuss
its Quality Pro certification program and
may consider using this as a basis for
setting criteria for general pest
management. Additionally, they were
involved in the following activities:
(Continued on p. 10)
Page 9
-------
(Commercial & Residential - from p. 9)
' creating trainingin the changing
technologies used by the industry;
supportingits members in the use of
IPM to manage structural pests.
Peachtree Pest Control Co., Inc.
joined PESP in December, 2003. The
company provides pest control,
termite control and lawn care using an
IPM approach that integrates preventive
and corrective measures to reduce pests
to a mutually acceptable level. The
measures include inspection, sanitation,
identification, exclusion (mechanical and
chemical), monitoring, and when
necessary, utilization of pesticides.
Reliable Pest Control was involved in
the following activities:
implemented IPM techniques to reduce
environmental risks from pesticides;
demonstrated to other small pest control
companies that they can
minimize environmental
impacts by the judicious use
ofpesticides;
decreased the frequency of
pesticide applications;
moved to reduced-risk
formulations and eliminated
organophosphates from their
inventory;
educated consumers on the
importance of sanitation and
environmental modifications to and
around structures.
Sanitary Pest Control Company
provides residential and commercial
customers with IPM, including least-
toxic alternatives for the management of
indoor pests. To eliminate or reduce
risks from the use of conventional
insecticides in crack, crevice and w all void
treatments, the company utilizes the
Sanitary Pest Contra I Sj stem, apatented,
portable refrigeration unit that delivers
freezing air from the tip of a wand
applicator to flush and kill insects on
contact. Baits are also used where
needed.
Last year the company:
increased crack and crevice treatments in
place of floor/wall junction sprays;
used baits and traps to monitor propri-
etary Freeze Zone technology.
Steritech Group, Inc. eliminates, to
the maximum extent possible, the use
of conventional toxic residual sprays
and contact aerosols. To do this, the
company promotes the use of low-
toxicity products, indudingbaits, dusts,
and reduced risk products. It improved
its trapping efforts, and it is increasing its
emphasis on technician training. Last
year, the company:
reduced use of toxic bait blocks for
rodent control;
reduced use of py rethroid dusts and
sprays for structural pests.
Wayne's Environmental Serviceswas
new to PESP in 2004. They offer
complete lawn care and pest control
management for commercial and
residential properties in the Birmingham,
Alabama area. The company focuses on
a perimeter pest control program that
keeps
outdoor
pests from
coming
inside the
home or
commercial
facility.
Prevention
includes
elimination
of pest
harborage (clogged downspouts, gutters
and mulch dose to the house) and
elimination of pest access (attic vents,
kitchen plumbingpipes, and chimney).
Walt Disney World, one of the largest
amusement parks in the world, is located
in Florida. In 2003, it reported the
following activities as part of PESP:
con trolling mosquitoes using carbon
dioxide as an attractant;
instituting a rodent
control program using
aerial photography and
rodent bait stations that
are bar coded for
information gathering;
producing a pest
management monthly
newsletter;
using beneficial insects
as part of its turf
management program.
Page 10
-------
CROP CONSULTANTS SECTOR
OVERVIEW
This sector includes members
representing independent consultants
and consultant organizations that
provide advice, research, and technical
support to the agricultural industry.
Independent crop consultants, who
number about 3,500 nationally, are a
significant source of technological
information to farmers.
Their importance in augmenting
traditional,
Sector Leader:
management practices is research into
alternatives, development of holistic
processes that make such alternatives
viable, and efforts to promote these
practices among growers. The most
critical constraints to this transition for
growers are finding the time and chang-
ing their processes.
Crop consultants play a major role in
the implementation of new technologies
and processes in farm communities. PESP
reduce pesticide risk through the
following activities:
grower education, training, and
outreach programs;
adoption of alternatives to organophos-
phate and carbarn ate insecticides, and
reducing reliance on conventional
pesticides;
technology transfer, demonstration, and
evaluation ofnew processes and
techniques for pest management;
contract research.
Member
Association of Applied IPM Ecologists
Glades Crop Care, Inc.
National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants
New England Fruit Consultants
university
extension-based
technology
transfer is
increasing, just as
the one-on-one,
assistance
traditionally provided by government
agricultural extension programs is
decreasing.
The Crop Consultants Sector is
comprised of four organizations, two
consultants and two umbrella consultant
organizations.
Glades Crop Care, was recognized for
the third consecutive year as a PESP
Champion in 2004 forks work in furthering
the adoption of IPM.
These members are providing direct
information for farmers and in some cases
are developing complementary relationships
with cooperative extension programs.
Because of the critical role crop
consultants play in the selection and use of
pesticides and their integrated approach to
problem solving, PESP will continue to
recruit new members into this sector in 2004
and beyond.
CHALLENGES
A major challenge
faced by this sector is
the need for integrated
pest management
options that are
manageable, effective,
realistic and offer
economically viable
alternatives to tradi-
tional pesticides.
Crucial to the
transition to safer pest
Steve Hopkins
Liaison
Steve Hopkins
Sherry Click
to be assigned
Ben Gregg
703-308-0334
703-308-0334
703-308-7035
703-308-8178
and its members need to identify
successful approaches and technologies
that can facilitate wholesale change in
actions across the nation.
PESP and its crop consultant
members can play a major role in
bringing IPM practices to growers and
institutionalizing the practices.
PESP hopes to build on the strengths
of this sector in technology transfer,
information exchange, demonstrations,
technical workshops, and outreach. At the
same time, we will identify way s to measure
the outcomes of these efforts in reducing
pesticide risk and increasingmembership in
the sector.
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
Members of the Crop Consultants
Sector share common goals and work to
GladesCrop Care,
Inc., an independent
research and
consulting firm with
headquarters in
Jupiter, Florida, is
the largest crop consulting firm in the
state. Glades has earned national and
international recognition for
innovative pest and disease
management programs, including
recognition in 2004, for the third
consecutive year, as a PESP
Champion.
Glades has continued:
their food safety education and
auditing public outreach program
to promote proper pesticide use;
apply ing multi-attribute toxicity
factors to resistance management
tools;
a GIS\GPS system to promote
region-wide coordination of pest
management activities,
development and field evaluation
of pest management strategies;
further work on green label
development and outreach;
conducting extensive outreach on
IPM to the public, growers and
communities; and
to be a leader in pesticide risk
reduction in the high-value, heavily
agricultural areas of Florida.
National Alliance of Independent Crop
Consultants (NAIC C) is the national
society of agricultural professionals who
provide research and advisory services to
clients for a fee. The Alliance has over
500 members in 40 states and several
Page 11
-------
(Crop Consultants - from p. 11)
foreign countries with expertise in the
production of most crops grown
around the world.
New England Fruit Consultants is an
independent agricultural consulting
firm that provides IPM information
and recommendations pertinent to all
aspects of tree fruit production. They
focus on transferring reduced-risk
practices, educating growers on IPM,
and reducing the risks, especially to
workers, from pesticide use. Their
current strategy includes research,
outreach, education, evaluation and
field trials of non-organophosphate
and non-carbamate tree fruit pest
management techniques.
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS SECTOR
Sector Leader:
Member
Environmental Resource Center
North American Pollinator Protection Campaign
This sector was formed to provide a
place in the program for non-grower/non-
pesticide user organizations whose missions
relate to pesticide risk reduction.
There are dozens of such organizations
throughout the U. S. that represent thou-
sands of citizens interested in protecting the
environment. EPA has alonghistory of
workingvoluntarily with environmental
organizations to reduce the risk of pesti-
cides.
Many of these organizations now have
an opportunity to formalize this partner-
ship through their participation in PESP.
In 2003, the North American Pollinator
Protection Campaign (NAPPC) joined
PESP as a Supporter. NAPPC is a coalition
of scientific researchers, state and federal
agencies, private industry, and conservation
and environmental groups dedicated to
ensuring sustainable populations of
pollinatinginvertebrates, birds, and
mammals throughout the U.S., Canada, and
Mexico.
NAPPC coordinates local, national, and
international action projects in the areas of
pollinator research, education and aware-
ness, conservation and restoration, and
policies and practices.
NAPPC also promotes special
partnership initiatives to facilitate communi-
Sherry Click
Liaison
DirkHelder
Gabe Patrick
703-308-7035
703-305-4610
703-305-6155
cation among stakeholders, build strategic
coalitions, leverage existing resources, and
have a positive and measurable impact on
the populations and health of pollinating
animals.
This year, NAPPC and the U S Botanical
Gardens co-sponsored a pollination exhibit
visited by more than 25,000 guests. Because
of the overwhelming response, the exhibit
plans to stay open for a longer period.
Several staff from the Office of Pesticide
Programs
also visited
the exhibit.
Envi-
ronmental
Resource
Center
(ERG)
joined
PESP this
year. ERG
promotes
sustainable environments through commu-
nity education, awareness and participation.
Located in Idaho, with over 700
members, ERG is dedicated to fostering
dose, personal relationships with the
environment, and conservation ethics
among the residents and guests of the
Wood River Valley and surrounding
communities. ERG initiates programs,
activities, and events that provide the
facilities and resources for educating the
public about local and global environmen-
tal issues.
Eventually, PESP will provide
opportunities for a wide variety of
environmental organizations to work
closely with EPA.
Many of the activities in this sector are
evolving from networking with existing
sectors, including Technology Transfer,
Schools, Landscaping/Turf, and those that
are agriculturally based.
Page 12
-------
FIELD & Row CROPS SECTOR
OVERVIEW
This sector encompasses the vast
majority of agricultural acreage in the United
States and is an important segment of the
nation's economy. It includes corn, cotton,
wheat, rice, soybeans, potatoes, peanuts,
hops, sugar, mint, alfalfa, canola, and
tobacco. Many of these commodities already
are represented in PESP, and EPA will be
Sector Leader:
American Peanut Council
Kansas Corn Growers Association
Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association
Mint Industry Research Council
National Potato Council
Northwest Alfalfa Seed Grower Association
U.S. CanolaAssociation
U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee
U.S. Sugar Corporation
2002. Between 1996 and 2002, there was a
four-fold increase in acres treated with
biopesticides in this sector. This increase in
the use of biopesticides largely can be
attributed to the rapid adoption of Bt corn
and Bt cotton. Since EPA established a
reduced-risk registration program in 1996,
the acres treated with safer, chemical
formulations has increased eight times.
Michael G likes
Liaisons
Michael Glikes
Carol Frazer
Carol Frazer
Frank Ellis
Janet Andersen
Shanaz Bacchus
SusanneCerrelli
Dennis Szuhay
Amy Rispin
703-305-6231
703-305-6231
703-308-8810
703-308-8810
703-308-8107
703-308-8712
703-308-8097
703-308-8077
703-305-6098
703-305-5989
working with grower groups of the
unrepresented commodities to bring them
into the program in 2005 and the years
ahead.
Kansas, one the nation's largest corn
producing states, participates in PESP and
was represented by its association of corn
and grain sorghum growers. At the national
level, grower associations represent several
commodities, in eluding potatoes, peanuts,
hops, mint, and canola. Other members
include a regional association of alfalfa seed
growers in the Pacific Northwest and a
private company that grows sugar in
Florida
This sector represents approximately
800 million acres treated with pesticides,
with about 4% of these acres treated with
biopesticides and an additional 8% treated
with other reduced-risk pesticide products in
CHALLENGES
Increasing the adoption of IPM on
agricultural acreage in the U. S. is a goal
shared by EPA and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Achieving this goal will largely
depend on the commitment of growers
within this sector. The transition to IPM
practices-mainly monitoring and inspecting
before applyingpesticides -is especially
challenging for growers responsible for high
volume crops such as corn and potatoes
because they have so many acres to monitor
and inspect.
These practices are more readily
deployed in growingmore specialized,
minor crops because such crops usually do
not cover as much land and bringgreater
returns per acre than most field/row crops
(with the possible exception of cotton).
Furthermore, making a transition away
from the routine spraying of conven-
tional pesticides requires a cultural
change that will not happen overnight.
Another major challenge shared
by all members of this sector is a need
for research on effective, biologically-
based and chemical alternatives to
some of the higher risk conventional
pesticides. Members also would
benefit from the demonstration and
promotion of these practices among
their growers. The 4% adoption rate
for biopesticides is a clear indicator that
there is room for growth in this area.
Increasing the use of biologically-based,
IPM practices, in particular, is a challenge
shared by EPA.
In the past decade, one success has
been thegrowingpopularity of planting
seeds that are genetically-engineered to
resist pests. Among herbicides, the
reduced-risk chemical gly phosate is widely
used in this sector, and crops such as
cotton and soybeans can now be grown
using varieties that are genetically-engi-
neered to resist this particular chemical.
However, the sudden success of some
other new varieties-Bt corn, Bt cotton, and
Bt potato -was followed by criticisms of
these biologically-based technologies
mainly due to uncertainties about long-
term effects on human health and the
environment.
Other types ofbiological insecticides
have not caught on so fast because they
usually target a specific insect species, cost
more, and are more difficult to apply than
the broad-spectrum, conventional products
they are intended to replace.
EPA recognizes the value of field
demonstrations of promising alternatives
as a means to reduce barriers to the
adoption ofbiopesticides and other
reduced risk alternatives. Collaborative,
voluntary efforts such as those represented
in PESP promise to be a potent means to
this end and EPA will work to help share
and transfer this information to other
PESP members and unrepresented
commodity groups as well. Finally, PESP
is expanding this sector in 2005 by
recruitingnew commodity associations.
(Continued on p. 14)
Page 13
-------
(Field & Row Crops - from p. 13)
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
The members represented in the
Field & Row Crops Sector worked
toward reducing the risks associated with
pesticide use through the following
activities:
grower education, training, and
outreach programs;
programs to promote adoption of a
code of sustainable agricultural
practices;
self-assessment, positive point and
certification programs to track
progress and document adherence to
sustainable practices code;
adoption of alternatives to organo-
phosphate and carbamate insecti-
cides, and reduced reliance on
conventional pesticides.
Kansas Corn Growers Association and
Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers
Association encourage pesticide
environmental stewardship among
Kansas' corn and grain sorghum
growers. Last year, the Associations
promoted the responsible use of
pesticides through press releases,
newsletters, radio spots, and displays at
farm shows and crop schools. They
also cooperated with growers to
educate them about the use of best
management practices to help reduce
non-point source runoff from
agriculture.
Mint Industry Research Council
supports research and programs to
enhance the productivity of high
quality mint while minimizing adverse
impacts on the environment. Last year,
the Council:
developed and evaluated experimental
peppermint and spearmint varieties
for pest and disease resistance;
evaluated a new reduced-risk pesticide
Page 14
for controlling spider mites;
conducted pesticide and fertilizer use
survey s in Idaho and Washington;
funded research on the use of mint
oils for weed and disease control on
other crops, such as potatoes and
Northwest Alfalfa Seed Growers
Association is working to improve its
IPM program, which is designed to
protect pollinators, control pests,
reduce the use of pesticides, increase
yields, and ensure the long-term
profitability for growers in the western
U.S. In 2004, the association reported
that it educated growers by providing
information regarding optimal IPM
practices through its website, periodic
publications, and its annual seed school,
which brings together university
researchers, the seed industry,
biochemical experts, government
personnel, and growers. The
association conducted research in four
primary areas of IPM:
maintenance and development of
low toxicity insecticides to provide
chemical control of pests while not
destroying the effective use of
cultural and biological methods of
controlling them;
use of cultural practices which
contribute to the reduction of pests
and the protection of natural preda-
tors;
identification, propagation, and
protection of insects that provide
biological control of alfalfa, seed
pests; and
continuing research on biotechnology
as it relates to pest management.
National Potato Council (NPC)
developed a definition for
potato production IPM to
guide its members in adopting
safer pest management
practices, thereby, reducing
pest risk. In 2004, the NPC
reported that it:
recognized four potato
growers as NPC Environ-
mental Stewardship Award
Winners;
worked with state potato
organizations to have potato
growers complete a survey
to evaluate their IPM practices;
worked with USDA on projects in
every major potato producing state -
the single largest target for these
funds was research on late blight,
reflecting the widespread and
destructive nature of this pest; and
worked with USDA to develop and
commercialize potato varieties that
are pest or virus resistant and,
thereby, reduce chemical applica-
tions.
U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection
Committee is developing IPM
programs for major hop growing
regions to produce sufficient, high
quality hops for the world market and
reduce pesticide risk to the work force,
consumers, and the environment. U.S.
Hops was recognized as a PESP
Champion in 2004 for its commitment
to environmental stewardship. In 2004,
it reported that it:
published baseline pesticide usage
data and analyses based on the results
of grower surveys in 1998 and 1999;
conducted field and greenhouse
efficacy testing on several reduced
risk and biopesticide products, and
exchanged results with hop research-
ers in Germany, thereby, allowing
both countries to identify promising
new compounds for concurrent
registration;
held educational meetings and grower
field days; and
coordinated hop entomology,
pathology, weed science, and genetics
programs to develop cost-effective
IPM strategies for U.S. commercial
hop producing areas and new hop
varieties with genetic resistance to
certain pests and diseases.
-------
FOOD PROCESSORS SECTOR
OVERVIEW
This sector includes members that are
food processors or associations that
represent food processors. Food processing
is a $500 billion dollar industry that exerts a
tremendous influence on how agricultural
practices are conducted in the gector Leader:
United States and worldwide.
In fact, several members sell
agricultural products to both
domestic and international
markets. All members are
involved in the processingof
foods that are key components of children's
diets. Hence, the members are active
proponents of IPM and other practices that
reduce pesticide risks.
CHALLENGES
As with all agricultural producers, a
major challenge for members in this sector is
the need for research on effective reduced-
risk alternatives to conventional pesticides.
Competition and protection ofbrand
identity are also considerations. Members
are reluctant to share information regarding
approaches and technologies that work.
Also, because each organization handles its
product sourcing and pest management
programs differently, their approaches to
transitioninggrowers to safer pest manage-
ment practices vary greatly.
Fortunately, members of this sector
have overcome their reluctance to discuss
pesticide use and are sharing information
about their activities. As PESP builds
stronger relationships within this sector, it is
hoped that information sharing and
technology transfer among these companies
will be improved. This sector is ripe for
growth because other food processors would
surely benefit from the knowledge and
experience of current PESP members.
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
Members share common goals and
most have worked to reduce the risk from
pesticides through the following types of
activities:
grower education, training, and outreach
programs;
preparation and distribution of lists of
higher risk pesticides;
programs to promote adoption of
reduced-risk pest management
practices;
programs to track adherence to
Members
Campbell Soup Company
Del Monte
General Mills, Inc.
Gerber Products Company
pesticide tolerance levels in raw and
finished product;
adoption of alternatives to organophos-
phate and carbamate insecticides, and
reduced reliance on conventional
pesticides, in general.
Frank Ellis 703-308-8107
Kevin Costello 703-305-5026
Frank Ellis 703-308-8107
Ed Brandt 703-308-8699
Sherry Click 703-308-7035
Campbell Soup Company works with
their growers, agriculture organizations,
regulatory agencies, and land grant colleges,
to identify keys to improved practices and
increasing adoption of sustainable agricul-
ture practices. Working with these groups
through on-farm programs, research and
education, improve sustainable practices and
their implementation. Campbell's activities
included:
initiating and supporting a tomato
disease forecasting network that
improved disease control under high
disease pressure and reduced fungicide
applications by 50% under light disease
conditions;
reducingmethamidophos-OP applica-
tions through cultural management, use
of alternative insecticides, and prescrip-
tive use of OPs; and
introducing a line of certified organic
tomato juice.
Del Monte Foods, a major producer
of processed fruits, vegetables, and
tomatoes with facilities in California, the
Northwest, Midwest and Texas, sources
raw products from 3,000 growers over
eight states with some 160,000 acres of
fruits and vegetables. Their strategic
approach is to ensure a stable, high
quality, and economic supply of raw
product by supporting research, develop-
ment, implementation, and advice on IPM
systems that fully consider the safety of
the food supply, employees, and the
environment. Their specific activities
included:
instituting pesticide residue and
chemical contaminant management
program on 28,000 Ib of raw product for
newly acquired baby food line;
utilizing low-risk seed treatment for
suckinginsect control on 75% of
commercial bean seed intended for
Midwest and Texas production as an
organophosphate replacement;
improving leafhopper control in
Northwest seed production to elimi-
nate OP applications through a
combination of improved monitoring
and use of seed treatments.
General Mills, Inc. is
working toward eliminating all
detectable pesticide residues in its
finished products. They are
pursing this through agricultural
research, funding IPM research,
assisting biopesticide registrants, and
assisting suppliers, alliance partners, and
co-packers with developing and imple-
menting IPM practices. General Mills is:
including biopesticides in research trials
in the U S and Mexico;
workingwith processingplants to
implement biopesticides into small
scale field production of various crops
leading to full scale implementation
where appropriate;
reducing pyrethroid insecticide use in
sweet corn through education and
information to pest control supervisors
on application timing, moth trap data,
and application rates along with better
cleaning equipment in processing
plants; and
working to eliminate OP use in broccoli
and cauliflower production in Mexico.
Gerber Products Company
produces some 200 food products,
including organic baby food, for distribu-
tion in over 80 countries. Gerber is
dedicated to the elimination of all
detectable residues in its finished products
and funds research to develop and
implement IPM practices to reduce or
eliminate pesticide applications on the
crops it buys. Last year, Gerber:
spearheaded a U SDA grant with the goal
of eliminating prophylactic use of OP
and carbamate insecticides on sweet
potatoes;
conducted apple insect pest control
research and on-farm demonstrations;
collaborated on research to develop a
sustainable organic peach production
system;
fostered adoption by two-thirds of their
Midwest carrot growers of a disease
forecasting system that eliminated,
on average, three fungicide applica-
tions.
Page 15
-------
GOVERNMENT SECTOR
Sector Leader:
OVERVIEW
The Government Sector represents
federal, state, county and tribal organiza-
tions that directly or indirectly support
programs in pesticide risk reduction,
integrated pest management, and environ-
mental stewardship. Though diverse in their
various responsibilities,
these organizations find
common ground in
seeking and applying
safer tools for manag-
ing in sect, weed, and
microbial pests.
Nationwide, govern-
mental organizations
exert a huge influence
on how pesticides are
used in agricultural,
CHALLENGES
Governmental organizations are
empowered and directed by statute and
charter to protect and improve human
health and environment. However, in
establishinggoals, they must negotiate with
diverse stakeholders and seek practical
commercial, and
residential settings, and
PESP members are leading the way with a
multitude of innovative and practical
initiatives to reduce pesticide risks.
The U.S. Department ofDefense's
Armed Forces Pest Management Board, a
Charter Partner in PESP, and the Bay Area
Stormwater Management Agencies Associa-
tion of C alifornia have the longest tenure in
this sector, datingback to 1995. Both
agencies are truly innovative and have
effected positive change far beyond their
specific mandates.
This year, the Southern Regional IPM
Center joined PESP. There are four regional
IPM centers funded by USDA. The centers
work to identify and resolve pest manage-
ment issues, prioritize pest management
efforts, develop pest management strategic
plans, and coordinate pest management
issues on a regional basis based on the
National IPM Roadmap. EPA participates
in the four regional IPM centers steering
committees, advisory committees and
workgroups and encourages joint activities
by regions
and IPM
Center
stakeholders.
This effort is
working and
will be
continued
and expanded
in 2005.
Page 16
Bay Area Stormw ater Management Agencies A ssoc.
Guy ahoga County Board of Health
Griggs County (ND) 319 Water Quality Project
Maine Integrated Pest Management Council
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Sarasota County Government Public Works
Summit Co.(OH) Combined General Health Distr. Katie Hall
U.S. Department of Defense Glenn Williams
U.S. PublicHealth Service to be assigned
Washington State Department of Agriculture Glenn Williams
Steve Hopkins
Liaisons
to be assigned
Katie Hall
Anne Ball
to be assigned
to be assigned
Shih-ChiWang
703-308-0334
703-308-0166
703-308-8717
703-305-0313
703-308-0166
703-308-8287
703-308-8287
outcomes that benefit their respective
constituents and communities. These
organizations must understand how to use
pesticides in way s that reduce risks from
pests and pesticides and to adopt IPM
approaches to pest management that work
in particular, site-specific environments.
For example, a county or municipality
may need to control mosquitoes and other
disease vectors effectively while adopting
reduced-pesticide-risk strategies that protect
public health. States and counties in
agricultural areas must find way s to reduce
the impacts of pesticide and nutrients on
stream s, rivers, and w atersheds while
ensuring a heal thy and plentiful food
supply.
Urban and suburban governments are
constantly challenged to provide timely
educational outreach to the public on IPM
and safer pest management practices in
schools and in the home. In addition,
organizations in this sector strive to achieve
their pest management goals at a time when
federal and state fun ding is
reduced.
PESP members are
recognized leaders in their
respective areas of action and are
findingnew ways to handle
these challenges. For its part,
EPA is coordinating and
sharinginformation on new
approaches and technologies for
PESP members.
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
Bay Area Stormwater Management
Agencies Association (BASMAA)is a
consortium of seven San Francisco Bay
Areamunicipal storm water programs
that work to identify and prevent
negative imp acts to surface waters and
sediments caused by
pesticides used in urban
areas within the
watershed. In 2004,
BASMAA reported the
following activities:
expanded the 0 ur Water
OurWorldprog&ni
statewide;
included distributors,
retailers and landscape
centers in a series of
educational and outreach
efforts;
provided extensive training and certifica-
tion to vendors and retailers;
developed and distributed point of sale
educational materials and TV and radio
media spots to educate the public in safe
use practices;
developed and implemented objective
measures, in eluding surveys, sales data
and water quality monitoring to assess
the success of the program.
U.S. Department of Defense Armed
Forces Pest Management Board
(AFPMB) coordinates pest management
efforts for the uniformed services and
identifies and responds to pest
management issues that could affect
military personnel stationed anywhere in
the world. AFPMB is a charter member
of PESP, a 2004 PESP Champion and a
major innovator in pest management
practices throughout the country. In
2004, AFPMP reported progress on the
following activities:
developed and deployed real time test kits
that determine if particular mosquito
populations carry disease agents;
continued research in to spray technology
that may make it possible for a 50% or
better per-acre reduction in active
ingredient;
applied the results of its West Nile Virus
Program to help communities in
Northern Virginiadeal with this
problem;
-------
ensured that 100% of DoD installations
have current pest management plans;
continued the reduction of the amount
ofpesticide applied annually on DoD
installations;
required appropriate certification for all
DoD installation pesticide applicators.
CuyahogaCounty (Ohio) District Board
of Health administers programs to
protect the population from harm and
illness that arise from adverse
environmental factors. Programs include
food protection, solid waste
management, mosquito control, rodent
control, private water systems, home
care, and the prevention of child lead
poisoning. Their strategy focuses
particularly on vector-borne diseases.
GriggsCounty (North Dakota)319
Water Quality Project Project addresses
the control ofnon-point source
pollution and the improvement of the
quality of waters within the Sheyenne
River and Bald Hill Creek watersheds. In
2004, Griggs Co. reported the following
activities:
continued its integrated crop manage-
ment program which provides advice to
crop consultants, soil testing, and advice
on nutrient and pesticide management
strategies;
conducted a GIS/GPS pilot project on
site-specific, precision application of
pesticides and fertilizers in lieu of
broadcast applications;
encouraged the use of feedlot waste
management systems to isolate feedlot
runoff, prescribed grazing systems that
use vegetation in pastures to filter
runoff and water sources isolated from
natural water courses, and conducted
water quality monitoringto assess the
effectiveness of their non-point source
protection programs.
Maryland Department of Agriculture, a
2002 PESP Champio n and a leader in IPM
outreach, oversees amultifaceted
program on IPM, organic, and
biocontrol techniques to reduce pesticide
risk in vegetable farming. The MDA
conducts research and demonstration
and assists in the use of beneficial insects
that prey on caterpillar grain pests such as
corn ear worm and fall army worm. They
maintain an IPM directory and website
which provides information on least-
toxic control methods and IPM tips for
managingpests.
SarasotaCounty (Florida) Government
Public Worksprovides a focus on
prevention and suppression ofpest
problems while apply ing methods which
have aminimum impact on human
health, nontarget organisms, the
environment, and groundwater. It
works to reduce the use of traditional
synthetic chemicals by utilizing IPM
principles of monitoring, mechanical
controls, and the use of biopesticides.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's Outreach Program on
Human Health has demonstrated its
commitment to IPM and a desire to
reduce the use of chemical pesticides and
their associated risks to human health
and the environment. Through its
Public Health TrainingNetwork, the
Centers conduct trainingprograms and
maintains information on its websites.
The CDC Office of Health and Safety
has an informed discussion of IPM in a
research facility in Biosafety in
Microbiological and Biomedical
Laboratories which is available on the
web. Its National Center for
Environmental Health maintains a
website focused on health incidents in
the cruise ship industry which includes a
remarkably thorough discussion of all
phases of IPM aboard sea-goingvessels.
Washington State Department of
Agriculture serves as the lead for
Washington's Interagency Integrated Pest
Management Coordinating Committee.
The committee is comprised of IPM
coordinators form all state institutions
of higher education and all state agencies
with pest management responsibilities.
Summit County (Ohio) Health
Department, new to PESP in 2004, is
responsible for the protection and
promotion of the community's health.
It serves people of all ages in Summit
County, which includes ten townships,
nine villages and the cities of Guy ahoga
Falls, Fairlawn, Green, Hudson,
Macedonia, Munroe Falls, Stow,
Tallmadge and Twinsburg
The mission of the Summit County
Health Department is to protect and
promote the health of the entire
community through programs and
activities designed to address the safety,
health, and well beingof the people who
live in Summit County. Through its
programs and activities, the department
seeks to create a healthful environment
and insure the accessibility of health
services to all.
Page 17
-------
LANDSCAPING/TURF SECTOR
OVERVIEW
This sector consists of
organizations with activities
related to landscaping and turf
on golf courses, residential/
commercial properties, and
public spaces. Members are
engaged in all aspects of
growing, selling, installing, and
maintaining landscape plants
and flowers.
Golf courses are well
represented in this sector, as are
companies and organizations
that represent the consumer/
homeowner and landscaping
market.
In the U.S., there are approximately
13,000 golf courses representing 1.2
million acres and up to 85 million
households representing 17 million acres
of residential turf. When recreational,
commercial, and institutional areas are
accounted for, total turf in urban areas is
estimated at around 30 million acres.
Accordingto the 1998 and 1999
Pesticide In dustry Sales an d Usage Repo rt, up
to 85 million pounds of pesticide active
ingredient were applied by consumers for
residential pest control while close to 15
million pounds of pesticide active
ingredient were professionally applied to
golf courses.
Close to 75% of lawn and garden
pesticides and fertilizers are purchased at
either a discount/mass merchandiser or
home improvement center. Nearly 20%
are purchased at a lawn and garden center
or hardware store.
CHALLENGES
While the use of pesticides on turf
provides benefits to users, they may also
pose challenges to both human health and
the environment.
A U. S. Geological Survey analysis of20
major river basins and aquifer systems
reported that insecticides used around
homes, gardens, and in commercial and
public areas were often found in streams at
levels above water quality guidelines. The
results of pesticide monitoring of residential
runoff indicate that the most widely used and
marketed herbicides and insecticides are
routinely found in urban runoff in different
regions of the country.
Page 18
Sector Leader:
American Nursery and Landscape Association
Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary Program
BrookfieldZoo
Center for Resource Management
Chicago Parks District, Division of Conservatories
City ofDavis (CA)
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
International Cut Flower Growers
Organic Golf Maintenance and Design
Parrot Jungle Island
Pebble Beach Company
Professional Lawn C are Association of America
U.S. Golf Association
Accordingto EPA's Pesticide Inci-
dence Data Reporting System, a total of
31,410 incidents relating to the use of
pesticides on lawns were reported over the
period between 1995 to 2002. The major
categories of incidents were human
exposures, domestic animal exposures, and
damage to non-target plants.
While no severe human incidents were
reported for either insecticides or herbicides,
a large percentage of reports were on minor
incidents involving humans. A smaller
percentage of reports involved domestic
animals or non-target plants. Significant
pesticide exposure to humans and the
environment can occur because of misuse.
According to a recent, peer-reviewed
analysis of outdoor residential pesticide use,
a sizable number of households apply more
than recommended doses and treat symp-
toms of pest problems without suitable
information about the causes. The analysis
also states that consumers do not read
pesticide labels, follow directions, or obtain
information about precautions and proper
uses against specific pests.
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
PESP members are working to
address these challenges by:
developing reduced risk approaches
to the pest problems associated with
turf and ornamental plants;
educating the general public and
industry workers about new technol-
ogy and methods;
setting standards that measure
environmental achievements.
Activities and accomplishments of
sector members in adopting reduced risk
approaches are provided below.
Ed Brandt
Paul Lewis
MaeDooley
Barbara VanTil
Kathy Seikel
Barbara VanTil
SharleneMatten
BrianSteinwand
Venus Eagle
Jack Arthur
Candace Brassard
Santhin iRamasamy
Ed Brandt
Thomas Brennan
703-308-8699
703-305-7398
215-814-5343
312-886-3164
703-308-8272
312-886-3164
703-605-0514
703-305-7973
703-308-8045
703-305^1075
703-305-6598
703-305-8133
703-308-8699
703-306-0540
American Nursery and Landscape
Association (ANLA) represents
members who grow, sell, and install
landscape plants and related products.
Members include growers, garden
centers retailers, horticultural
distributors, landscape professionals,
and industry suppliers. Through its
PESP membership, ANLA works to
aid the adoption of new and safer
technologies and practices by its
member organizations.
Audubon International educates and
encourages pesticide users to practice IPM
and promote naturally managed, turf
grass landscapes that reduce or eliminate
pesticide use. Theyprovideinformation
exchange and promotes positive role
models of those practicing such methods
to en courage and motivate others. Last
year, Audubon International:
took a leadership role in risk/use
reduction amongthoselaggingorin
need of assistance;
maintained an electronic library of
environmental information and fact
sheets on its Website;
conducted amanagedlands survey; and
widely distributed its guide to environ-
mental stewardship.
Brookfield Zoo is a conservation
organization whose mission is to educate
people about the environment. The
grounds department, which is responsible
for pest control on livingplants, uses pest
control strategies that provide the least risk
to plants, people, and animals. The zoo's
goal is to use less chemicals, especially high
risk ones, in exterior environments to
reduce the risk to its visitors. Zoo
educators talk to visitors about their
-------
approach, and encourage consumers
and homeowners to take similar
approaches when managing pests at
home. BrookfieldZoo:
developed manuals and trained
applicators in IPM techniques;
maintained files for all chemical applica-
tions made to the zoo's exterior;
utilized an organic lawn care program on
zoo grounds;
maintained a Website on its IPM activiies.
Center for Resource Management, a
national non-profit organization, founded
by Robert Redfordin 1981, joined PESP
in 2004. The Center was formed as a safe
harbor where business executives,
environmental leaders, citizens and
government officials could work out
environmental problems and conflicts in a
collaborative setting. CRM initiated both
the Golf and Environment (1996) and
Lawns and the Environment (2002)
Initiatives. Most recently, CRM initiated a
project to define criteria for organic golf
courses.
Chicago Park District, Division of
Conservatoriesuses biological pesticides
as alternatives to traditional, chemical
controls. Of the insects found in
conservatories, zoo habitats, butterfly
houses, and related facilities, the great
majority are members of the order
Homoptera, a group with sucking
mouthparts that includes scale insects,
whitefly, mealybugs, and aphids. In crops
such as citrus and avocado, these in sects are
amongthosemost successfully controlled
by natural enemies.
City of Davis, California manages nearly 350
acres of urban landscape (175 acres of
which is turf), over 250 acres of open space
area, and over 20,000 public trees. Their
IPM program was voluntarily established
in 1989 out of concern for the
environment and the unique
interrelationships that exist in public
spaces. Their activities focus on reducing
herbicide use, increasingtrainingin IPM
techniques for maintenance personnel, and
increasingpublic education through
sign age programs.
Golf Course Superintendents Association
of America (GCSA A) provides
superintendents with education and
information that enables them to safely
and effectively use pesticides in IPM
programs for golf course maintenance.
GCSAA presents many education
programs (full-day, half-day, online and
correspondence) on integrated pest
management, pesticide safety and
responsible pesticide use in golf course
management. Additionally, they lead
and fund a competitive grants program
that supports applied research to:
increase knowledge of the biology of
turfgrass pests,
develop improved cultural systems for
man aging turf,
develop cultural control programs to
suppress pests, and
more carefully define the conditions
when a pesticide application is most
effective for controlling a pest.
International Cut Flower Growers
Association, a2004PESP Champion,
represents cut flower growers, allied trades,
and university researchers. The association
educates growers on practical methods for
reducingpesticideuse, funds research in
IPM techniques, conducts ayearly IPM
survey, and has established a tech direct
program that provides professional
consulting to members on topics
indudingpest control. They arealeaderin
the application ofbiopesticides and
biological control through predator release.
The loss of broad spectrum insecticides
and the green house environment has
created both the incentive and
opportunities for the association.
Organic Golf Maintenance and Design
(formerly Meligolf) is reducing dependency
on chemical pesticides in golf course
maintenance by introducingnew
biopesticides, establishing tolerable levels
ofpests activity, and finding products that
work with smaller amounts of active
ingredient. Lastyear,Meligolf
worked with compost suppliers to
improve soil and, thereby, use less
fungicide on greens and tees;
evaluated the use of beneficial nematodes
and biopesticides for insect control;
targeted organic golf courses.
Parrot Jungle Island a 14-acre botanical
theme park in south Florida joined PESP
in 2004. Their IPM program
demonstrates an environmentally-friendly
approach that produces considerable cost
savings.
The program minimizes the use of
insecticides and introduced biological
controls. The success ofthe IPM program
was based upon their Plant Health Care
program that utilizes strict control of
irrigation, park-produced compost,
constant mulching, and cultivation
techniques. Through these programs,
Parrot Jungle Island has:
reduced by 75% over last 10 years the
use of inorganic fertilizers and high
nitrogen products on the grounds;
reduced water use for irrigation,
thereby minimizing nutrient leaching
and fungal problems; and
reduced or eliminated pesticide
spraying for insects and mites by
utilizing a proactive pruning schedule
for plants which reduces available
nutrients for insect invasions.
Pebble Beach Company manages golf
courses, open spaces, resorts, and
residential communities. A leader in the
use of innovative IPM techniques for golf
courses and resorts, Pebble Beach also has
an educational program to identify
alternatives to chemicals in the control of
household and garden pests. Pebble
Beach:
monitors runoff for impairment to water
quality and found contaminants below
levels ofconcern;
produces consumer information such as
brochures and fact sheets;
uses a state ofthe art treatment system
and rack contaminants for load/mix/
wash/rinsate equipment to reduce
pesticide spills;
supports research on pitch canker disease
of Monterey pine trees;
uses no mow zones and native vegeta-
tion in open spaces;
maintains a detailed Web page on
environmental stewardship.
Professional Lawn Care Association of
America strives to reduce pesticide risk to
the environment and applicators through
its IPM programs and best management
practices (BMPs). PLCAA educates lawn/
landscape companies on IPM practices and
BMPs and encourages them to educate
their customers about these practices. The
goal is to help urban, suburban and rural
homeowners understand lawn and
landscape management systems and
technologies that conserve and protect
valuable natural resources (water, soil,
atmosphere, and wildlife habitat) thus
protectingthe environment and human
health. At the same time, they strive to
help them understand the environmental
and economic benefits of caring for their
own lawns and landscapes.
United States G olf Association, the
national governingbody of golf since its
formation in 1894, is a non-pro fit
organization run by golfers for the benefit
ofgolfers. The association sponsors
programs that benefit every one who plays
the game. These essential services affect all
golfers, whether they are amateurs or
professionals, public-or private-course
players.^ _ 4_ A _. Page 19
-------
N ON-TREE FRUITS SECTOR
OVERVIEW
This sector includes 14 members
representing the grape (ineluding table
grapes, wine grapes and raisins), melon,
cranberry, pineapple, and banana industries,
a company focused on promoting soil
health, and a government-sponsored area
wide fruit fly management program.
Much of the fruit production repre-
sented by members of this sector originates
in California, Oregon and Hawaii. Collec-
tively, this sector
Sector Leader:
Workbook, as well as for continuing
innovations in the assessment and imple-
mentation of sustainable winegrowing
practices.
The Central Coast Vineyard Team was
recognized for its Positive Points System
which serves as the foundation of a
program aimed at grower self-assessment,
education and adoption of a reduced risk
systems approach to vineyard management;
and for their Biologically Integrated
Farming System project.
1 researched alternatives to OP'sand
carbamates for control ofwhiteflies, flea
beetles, and aphids; and
1 evaluated vine decline control strategies
for possible carry-over to other soil-
borne pathogens (e.g., Fusarium,
represents appro xi-
m ately 11.5 million
acres treated with
pesticides, with
about 4% of these
acres treated with
biopesticides, and an
additional 4%
treated with other
reduced-risk
pesticide products.
These figures are
comparable with the
adoption rate for
other reduced-risk
pesticides nationally.
A major
challenge that all members of this sector
share is the need for research and demon-
strations on effective, reduced-risk pest
management practices.
A 4% adoption rate for biopesticides as
compared to conventional alternatives is a
clear indicator of the room for growth in
this area. Increasing the use of biologically-
based pest management practices is a
challenge shared by EPA, as well as the
industry.
The Agency recognizes the value of
field demonstrations of promising
alternatives as a means to reduce barriers to
the adoption of biopesticides and other
reduced risk alternatives.
Collaborative voluntary efforts such as
those represented in PESP promise to be a
potent means to this end.
This year, the Lodi-Woodbridge
Winegrape Commission was recognized as a
PESP Champion for the third consecutive
year. Their recognition was based on their
leadership role in developing a state-wide
Co de of Sustain able Win egro iv ing Practices,
modeled after the Lodi Winegrower's
Page 20
Members
California Melon Research Advisory Board
Central Coast Vineyard Team
Cranberry Institute
Hawaii Area Wide Fruit Fly Pest Mgt. Program
Hawaii Banana Industry Association
Highlands Soil & Water
Lake County (CA) Winegrape Commission
Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape Commission
Low Input Viticulture and Enology of Oregon
National Grape Cooperative, Inc.
Pineapple Growers Association ofHawaii
Rainforest Alliance-ECO o.k. Program
Sonoma County Grape Growers Association
Sun-Maid Growers of California
Diana Home
Julie Heflin
Michael McDavit
Stephen Schaible
Kevin Sweeney
Julie Heflin
Diana Home
Angela Gonzales
Kathleen Knox
Mik a Hunter
to be assigned
SherylReffly
Driss Benmhend
Regina Langton
Barbara Madden
703-308-8367
703-308-9086
703-305-7761
703-308-9362
703-305-5063
703-308-9086
703-308-8367
703-308-0460
703-308-8290
703-308-0041
703-308-8269
703-308-9525
703-305-7161
703-305-6463
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
Sector share common goals and most
have worked to reduce pesticide risk
through the followingkinds of activities:
grower education, training, and outreach;
programs to promote adoption of a code
of sustainable agricultural practices;
self-assessment, positive point and
certification programs to track progress
and document adherence to sustainable
practices code;
adoption of alternatives to organophos-
phate and carbamate insecticides, and
reduced reliance on conventional
pesticides, in general.
California Melon Research Advisory
Board funds IPM and other reduced-
risk research programs that are regional in
scope for melon growers and handlers,
and their pest control advisors. The
research program attempts to dearly
identify economic, environmental, and/
or social benefits. In 2004, the board:
updated crop pro file and pest manage-
ment strategic plans for melons which
focused on action items for regulatory
research and grower education;
Central Coast Vineyard Team reduces
health and environmental risks
traditionally associated with production
agriculture through facilitating self-
assessment, grower to grower outreach
and education, and field
implementation/
demonstration of integrated
farming practices. The team
utilizes the Positive Points
System, a self-assessment
protocol that is the
foundation of assessment,
education and
implementation. In 2004,
they:
held 3 Positive Points
System sorkshops;
increased the number of
participatinggrowers over
2.5-fold since 1996;
sponsored several tailgate
meetings with over 250 attendees to
demonstrate specific practices, such as
pest identification, canopy management,
and non-point source pollution
prevention; and
developed and distributed quarterly
newsletters to over 5000 readers,
completed major website revision, and
released a Spanish version of the
Positive Points materials.
Cranberry Institute, which represents
growers in the U.S. and Canada, is
aggressively pursuing alternatives to
organophosphate and carbamate
insecticides and enhancing existing IPM
programs through research and grower
education. In 2004, the Institute:
finalized IPM manuals for Canada and
made them available to growers;
worked with IR4to achieve registrations
of reduced-risk products; and
encouraged growers to shift to newly
registered reduced-risk alternatives to
OPs.
Hawaii Banana Industry Association is
committed to increasing grower
awareness and adoption of IPM by
developing a positive point system and
-------
certification program for growers in
conjunction with the University of
Hawaii.
Hawaii Area Fruit Fly Pest Management
Program, a collaborative effort involving
USDA, Hawaii Department of
Agriculture, and University of Hawaii, is
aimed at designing and implementing an
area-wide IPM program for fruit fly
management.
Highlands Soil and Water is dedicated to
the premise that sustainable reductions
in pesticide use can be achieved by
adopting a production model that
focuses on establishing and maintaining
a healthy and functioning soil food web.
In 2004, Highlands:
established field trials using compost teas
and organically based soil amendments
in lettuce andwinegrapesinCalifornia;
and
measured the biological profile of healthy
soils and demonstrated the impacts of
current agricultural practices on soil
microorganisms.
Lake County Winegrape Commission, a
new PESP member, has instituted a
program for member growers to assess
the sustainability of their vineyard
operations, usingthe Code of Sustainable
Win egrowing Practices SelfAssessm ent
WorkbooktecenAj adopted state-wide.
The commission has held 26 self-
assessment workshops for over 100
participants, representing over 70%of
county growers and 6,000 acres.
Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape
Commission has along-term approach
to pesticide risk reduction through
education and outreach, field
implementation, and area-wide self
assessment programs for growers
utilizing a positive point system for
encouraging sustainable viticultural
practices. In 2004, the commission:
held 10 workbook sessions attended
by 78 growers who farm 35% of
district vineyards, evaluating the
implementation of sustainable
winegrowing practices;
created an on-line version of their
Winegrower's Workbook;
establishing a certification program for
growers achievingthe requisite number
of points which rank the level of
sustainability of farmingpractices;
with Protected Harvest, developed a
strategy fordistributingcertified
sustainably grown winegrapes; and
worked to adapt a risk indicator model
for assessingpesticide impacts used in
Lodi-Woodbridge viney ards and that can
be used in sustainable farmingproduc-
tion standards and certification.
Low Input Viticulture and Enology of
Oregon (LIVE) offers vineyards an
international certification in sustainable
agriculture utilizing apositiv epointsystem.
This certification program also features a
flexible systems approach that allows
growers to use biologically-based
options best suited to their own
growing conditions. Last year, LIVE:
revised and upgraded self-evaluation
score sheet, and distributed to all
members;
worked to create an internal evaluation
tool to track individual member progress
in pesticide use reduction;
consolidated in to new Oregon Wine
Board to enhance coordination with the
Oregon Winegrowers Association and
Oregon Wine Advisory Board; and
upgraded LIVE Website to include
interactive forum, trainingprogram, and
access to all forms
National Grape Cooperative, Inc. seeks
to produce the highest quality grapes in
an environmentally sustainable manner,
reduce pesticides in finished products,
vineyards, and the surrounding
environment, and support research to
enhance environmental protection and
food safety. In 2004, the cooperative:
disseminated recommendations to
growers encouraginguseofbiopesticide
alternatives to conventional fungicides;
increased scouting for grape berry moth
and use of cultural alternatives, resulting
in decreased use of conventional
insecticide use;
distributed the NwPof/feG»z^/or IPM
Scouting to all 1,400 of its members; and
continued funding research on biological
control alternatives and timingof spray
applications.
Pineapple Growers Association of
Hawaii is using an integrated
approach to reduce specific pesticide
uses, worker exposure, and
environmental risk that includes IPM
practices, a herbicide management
plan, use of cover crops, and crop
improvement through biotechnology
and improved application methods.
Rainforest Alliance - ECO o.k.
Program plans to transform
environmental and social conditions
in tropical agriculture through a
conservation certification program
for banana, coffee, cocoa, sugar cane,
and citrus growers. This program
encourages the adoption of IPM
practices to reduce pesticide risks to
humans and ecosystems.
Sonoma County Grape Growers of
California is implementing the Code
of Sustainable Wine Growing self-
assessment program with their
growers. In 2004they:
reported that usage of nine pesticides
identified for transition to lower risk
alternatives declined for the third
consecutive year, with a cumulative
35% reduction since 1999;
held 4 IPM grower meetings at demon-
stration vineyards with an average of 93
attendees;
initiated an Organic Producers Group
with 37 growers attending four
meetings;
held multiple field day s attended by over
300 growers;
launched Sonoma County Employee
Development program and held
Spanish-language workshops for over
100 attendees on a number of topics
indudingerosion control, vine mealy-
bugidentification and management
strategies, and weed identification and
control; and
held grower evaluation workshops using
the Code of Sustainable Winegrowing and
received self-assessments from 200
vineyard owners/managers representing
50%of Sonoma County grape acres.
Sun-Maid G rower s of C alifornia educate
growers on viney ardmonitoring
techniques, the safe and effective use of
spray materials, and the selection of
pesticides that are least likely to disrupt
beneficial organisms. In 2004, Sun-Maid:
promoted dried-on-the-vine raisin
production, which reduces tillage, dust
and particulate production;
educated growers on the use of the of
PestCast weather station system to
reduce pesticide use;
held a seminar for 166 attendees on
timingofpowdery mildew treatments,
resultingin reduced usage of sulfur;
sponsored mite field days to educate
growers on pest and beneficial insect
identification; and
increasingly relied on biopesticides and
organic certified products in lieu of
conventional alternatives.
Page 21
-------
ORGANIC SECTOR
This new sector represents organic
grower groups and organizations that wish
to partner with EPA to address issues
directly impacting organic agriculture.
There are more than 12,000 organic
farmers in the United States, with that
number increasingup to 12%every year. In
North America, organic crop land nearly
tripled from 1997-2003, with 3.7million
acres dedicated to organic production.
The U.S. organic market is projected to
reach a value of $30.7 billion by 2007, with a
five-year compound annual growth rate of
21.4% between 2002 and 2007, compared to
a 21.2% rate between 1997 and 2002.
However, the overall adoption level is
still less than 1%, and significantly increasing
that number remains a long-term challenge
for the industry.
Sector Leader:
Organic Materials Review Institute
Organic Trade Association
Organic food producers use
materials and methods that minimize
negative impacts on the environment and
are important as drivers for reduced risk
and more environmentally sustainable
approaches to agricultural production.
Most producers follow standards leading
to certification under the USD A
National Organic Standards Program.
RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES
In 2004, EPA worked to identify
grower groups, non-profit organizations,
Diana Home
Robert Torla
Diana Home
703-308-8367
703-308-8098
703-308-8367
trade associations, universities and other
institutions that utilize, advocate, or
support organic cropping sy stem s for
membership in the Organic Sector.
Two new members were recruited and
three additional applications are under
consideration.
EPA is working with its new members
to provide a forum for the identification of
reduced-risk pest management tactics
employed in organic production systems
that can be transferred successfully to
conventional agriculture.
RlGHTS-OF-WAY SECTOR
TheRights-of-Way (ROW) Sector is
composed of companies in the electric utility
industry that transmit electrical power over
high voltage powerlines. Each day, over
10,000 power plants deliver electricity to
customers over 157,000 miles of high
voltage electric transmission lines to 131
million customers.
RO Ws and the facilities that support
them are sited on hundreds of million of
acres in the U.S. and include towers for the
transmission lines, relay facilities, fences and
gates, bridges, and access roads. Depending
on their land holdings, ROW companies
may manage geological features near their
facilities, such as lakes, ponds, rivers,
streams, public and private water supplies,
wetlands, agricultural areas, and critical
wildlife and plant habitat.
The National Academy of Sciences has
called America's electric system "the supreme
engineering achievement of the 20th
Century."The ability ofthis system to
function reliably and provide abundant,
accessible and affordable electricity is a
cornerstone of the American economy.
Currently, there are 30 PESP members
in the sector. They support programs in
pollution prevention, pesticide risk reduc-
tion, IPM/integrated vegetation manage-
ment (TVM) and environmental steward-
ship in the maintenance of RO Ws.
A principal goal of these companies is
safe, reliable, and cost-effective transmission
of electric power to customers with minimal
Page 22
adverse impacts on human health and
the environment from the use of herbi-
cides. IVM effectively applied to ROW
vegetation is a key to achieving this goal.
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the
association of U.S. shareholder-owned
electric companies, international
affiliates and industry associates
worldwide. EEFs U.S. members serve
more than 90% of the ultimate customers
in the shareholder-owned segment of the
industry, and nearly 70% of all electric
utility ultimate customers in the nation.
Sector Leader:
Members
Aqumix, Inc.
Central Vermont Public Service Corporation
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative
Edison Electric Institute (and its members)
Allegheny Power
American Electric Power Service Corporation
Aquila
Arizona Public Service
Central Maine Power Company
Conectiv
Duke Power Company
Hawaiian Electric Company
National Grid
New York State Gas & Electric
IN ortheast U tilities
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
Pennsylvania Power & Light
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
Energy Association of Pennsylvania
New York Power Authority
Pacific Gas & Electric
Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association
PEPCO
Tennessee Valley Authority
VA, MD, & DE Association of Electric Cooperatives
Vegetation Managers, Inc.
Washington State Department of Transportation
Glenn Williams 703-308-8287
Liaisons
Sherry Click 703-308-7035
to be assigned
to be assigned
Jim Downing 703-308-9071
Carol Frazer 703-308-8810
Rosemary Biancardi 703-308-8145
Carol Frazer
Sherry Click
Sherry Click
SherylReilly
Carol Frazer
Rosemary Biancardi
Glenn Williams
Sherry Click
Rosemary Biancardi
Rosemary Biancardi
to be assigned
to be assigned
Glenn Williams
Mark Corbin
to be assigned
to be assigned
to be assigned
Rosemary Biancardi
Rosemary Biancardi
Alan Dixon
703-308-8810
703-308-7035
703-308-7035
703-308-8269
703-308-8810
703-308-8145
703-308-8287
703-308-7035
703-308-8145
703-308-8145
703-308-8287
703-305-7327
703-308-8145
703-308-8145
703-305-7237
-------
EEI, a Charter Partner in PESP,
developed an IVM Task Force, which
spearheaded the definition and adoption of
FVM for its members. This effort placed
EEI at the center of PESP's early efforts to
reduce adverse risks and impacts associated
with herbicides used in maintaining
ROWs.
In 1999/2000, EEI agreed to serve as
an umbrella for its member companies who
volunteered to join PESP -16 companies
currently.
CHALLENGES
As we enter the 21st Century, rapid
evolution of electric energy demands, lack
of investment in developingnew electricity
transmission facilities, and transition to an
increasingly wired, market-based
economy are severely straining electrical
transmission in the United States.
These realities create needs for rapidly
improving and modernizing the electricity
transmission grid in the United States.
With these improvements, the importance
of effective, integrated vegetation manage-
ment on utility rights-of-w ay must
increase. The transmission of reliable
electric power transmission and environ-
mental stewardship can positively support
each other. It is in this realm that PESP
seeks to have impact with its ROW partners.
The March, 2004, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) report
recommended adoptingindustry-wide IVM
for rights-of-way and suggested that each
of the utility companies consider direct
involvement with PESP. The report
described PESP participation as a
baseline indicator of a competent IVM
program.
PESP's commitment to the wire
^one-border ^pne practice of IVM is
the basis for FERC's recommenda-
tion. The effectiveness of wire zone-
border zone is proven for reducing
and/or eliminating power outages
related to vegetation. Moreover, it
promotes the transition of ROWs to
bio-or cultural control by establish-
ing desirable low-growing vegetation
which out competes tall growing
species. This minimizes adverse
environmental impacts, provides
wildlife habitat, and reduces economic
costs for ROW maintenance.
Assuring that the practice of IVM
appropriately maintains ROWs for
reliable transmission of power while
minimizing health and environmental
impacts is a major challenge of PESP for
the foreseeable future. By means of its
voluntary partnership, PESP seeks to be
a positive influence in the adoption of
IVM practices that improve transmission
reliability while assuring environmental
stewardship.
With regard to federal agencies,
inconsistencies in vegetation manage-
ment requirements and work approval
processes across agencies have emerged
as a significant issue impacting ROW
management. Consequently, PESP
supports EEFs effort to establish a
memorandum of understanding with
land-holding federal agencies to achieve
consistency.
2004 CHAMPIONS
Aquila
demonstrated outstanding
achievement in promoting IVM and
pollution prevention on its electric
power transmission right-of-ways.
We commended Aquila for its use
of risk screening factors in selecting
less risky herbicide products for its
IVM program, its growing reliance
on low volume, hand pumped
basal, foliar and cut/treat selective
applications to transition ROWs to
greater bio- or cultural control and
less chemical applications, and its
commitment to reporting annual
usage data from its tracking
database on specific herbicide
products to monitor transition.
New York Power Authority (NYPA):
demonstrated outstanding
achievement in promoting integrated
vegetation management and pollution
prevention on its electric power
transmission right-of-ways. In its
demonstration that FVM works,
NYPA is second to none.
We commend NYPA for its many
accomplishments supporting the
transition of ROWs to greater bio- or
cultural control, including:
completing and implementing its
innovative GIS mapping and data
collection program for IVM, its
reliance upon selective cut stump
treatment and low volume foliar
herbicide applications to reduce
herbicide application and protect
non-targets (over 90% of treated
acres), its use of percent acres treated
indexed to vegetation management
techniques to monitor transition of
ROW (less than 5% selective high
volume foliar application using
picloram and triclopyr), its use of a
tree stem density index to monitor
transition of ROW (medium and high
density indices reduced by 75%), its
research and demonstration programs
and support of the Environmen tal
Co ncerns in Rights-of-Way Man agent en t
symposia, and its notification of
ROW landowners program. NYPA
is an industry leader among PESP
members in the ROW sector.
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
PESP works with its members to
help them develop IVM strategies and
annually report their results. PESP
encourages members of this sector to
(Continued on p 24)
Page 23
-------
(Rights-of-\Afay - from p. 23)
m
adopt new
technologies
and to share
technologies
across the
sector.
In 2004,
members'
activities
include
improving the monitoring of vegetation
growth, identifying sensitive land and
water areas, targeting and communicat-
ingvegetation management actions, and
capturing environmental impacts of
vegetation management actions once
they are taken. Reports on progress
made must be communicated to the
industry and the public in a way that is
meaningful and influential.
Edison Electric Institute provides
vegetation management programs to
ensure public andworker safety and
reliability of service. In 2004, EEI
reported the following activities:
promoted an IVM approach to vegeta-
tion control on electric RO Ws;
established the PESP strategy for electric
utilities as the accepted strategy for
vegetation management on power lines
that cross federal lands throughout the
United States;
advocated acceptance of the PESP strategy
and the utility ROW vegetation manage-
ment standards being developed in the
response to the August 14,2003,
blackout;
increased the number of utilities
operatingunder the EEI PESP Strategy
Umbnlla.
The following EEFs affiliates
practice IVM and accept EEI's IVM
umbrella strategy and report:
Allegheny Power
American Electric Power Service
Corporation
Arizona Public Service
Conectiv
Duke Power Company
Energy Association of Pennsylvania
Hawaiian Electric Company
New York State Electric & Gas
Northern Indiana Public Service
Corporation
Pennsylvania Power & Light
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
Page 24
The following EEI affiliates pre-
pared their own 2004 PESP strategies and
annual reports:
Aquila reported the following activities:
trained subcontractors on IVM;
accurately tracked and measured
herbicide use, application rates, types
ofherbicides, frequency of treat-
ments, usage per acre, comparative
toxicity, brush densities, and cus-
tomer concerns;
utilized low volume foliar or basal
applications when herbicides were
needed;
maintained a transmission line
database developed in 2002.
Central Maine Power Company
reported the following activities:
practiced IVM to selectively control
tree species capable of interfering
with electrical conductors and
structures;
maintained herbicide free buffers near
streams, ponds, reservoirs, and wells;
selected herbicides that are reduced-
risk products;
incorporated herbicide and environ-
mental operations training as part of
the Center Maine program.
National Grid followed the EEI strategy
and reported the following activities:
promoted an integrated pest (vegeta-
tion) management approach for
vegetation control on electric rights-
of-way;
continue to work with federal
agencies such as the U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and Fish & Wildlife Service to
establish PESP as the accepted
strategy formanagingutility rights-of-
way on federal public lands;
advocated acceptance of
the PESP strategy in the
utility ROW vegetation
management standards
being developed in
response to the August
14,2003, Blackout;
increase the number of
utilities operating under
the EEI PESP Strategy
um brella.
Northeast Utilities reported the
following activities:
established the cyclical herbicide
tracking database to evaluate the
reduction in herbicide application
volumes (on a pounds of active
ingredient per acre basis);
initiated wildlife surveys on rights-of-
way under various maintenance
programs to evaluate the habitat
potential for a variety of wildlife
species (birds and butterflies) with a
focus on threatened or endangered
species;
continued with efforts to implement
an IVM program in New Hampshire.
The following five PESP members
(not affiliated with EEI) submitted
strategies:
Central Vermont Public Service
Corporation is a new PESP member
and reported the following activities:
conducted pesticide applicator's safety and
training sessions;
promoted IVM approach within its
ROWs;
stump and basal applications were
performed behind mechanical means of
vegetation management.
New York Power Authority reported
the following activities:
continued the emphasis on the low
volume foliar application ofherbi-
cides;
fully deployed newly completed GIS
for IVM program implementation
over the entire transmission system
in 2004;
continued to sponsor ROW research
on IVM methods, effectiveness and
environmental impacts;
-------
participated in the statewide training
of ROW certified pesticide applica-
tors.
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
reported the following activities:
implemented an integrated approach
to vegetation management on PG&E
electric ROWs;
promoted best management practices
(BMPs) for vegetation management
for electric transmission ROWs;
developed partnerships with stakehold-
ers (governmental agencies and private
organizations, as well as individual
landowners) to improve wildlife habitat
and reduce exotic plant species on electric
ROWs through the use of IVM;
promoted the use of the Wire Zone/
Border Zone approach to vegetation
management along electric transmis-
sion ROWs.
VA, MD & DE Association of
Electric Cooperatives reported the
following activities:
promoted an integrated pest (vegetation)
Management approach for the control
of incompatible vegetation on electric
utility rights-of-way;
advanced the use of selective herbicide
applications (i.e., backpack applications)
to control only tall-growingwoody
species that may impact the safety and
reliability of the electric system;
encouraged the selection of specific
herbicides that will provide adequate
control of the undesirable vegetation
with the lowest application rates. Only
herbicides havingminimal risks to non-
target plants, animals, and humans were
used in vegetation management
programs;
requiredlicensedprofessional applicators
to use only refillable/returnable
containers with closed system.
Vegetation Managers, Inc. reported
the following activities:
conducted preplanning of ROW
management to form the basis for
reductions in herbicide load on the
environment;
continued to update training, registra-
tion and licensing of employees with
the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture;
continued equipment modification
for closed system transfer of herbi-
cide materials.
SCHOOLS SECTOR
OVERVIEW
The sector includes universities
developing school and day care IPM training
programs, school districts launching IPM
school pilot programs, and non-profit
organizations developing IPM certification
programs for school systems to adopt. All
of our members focus on outreach and
education for safer school environments.
Last year, over 5 million children
benefited positively from IPM school
projects developed or coordinated by PESP
members and through EPA's Pesticides
schools reduced pesticide applications
and pest management costs by over 90%.
By furthering IPM in schools, these
members also contributed to pesticide
safety and awareness at home.
CHALLENGES
Enrollment in our public elemen-
tary and secondary school continues to
increase. An expected 48 million
students will be enrolled in our public
school systems by 2004.
Sector Leader:
Members
Auburn University-Dept. of Entomology & Plant Pathology
IPM Institute of North America, Inc.
Kyrene Elementary School
Monroe County School Corporation
New York City Board of Education
Southwest School IPM Technical Resource Center
University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Sherry Click
Liaisons
Clara Fuentes
Sherry Glick
Mary Grisier
Sherry Glick
Michael Glikes
Sarah Winfield
Deborah H artman
703-308-7035
703-308-0171
703-308-7035
415-947-4213
703-308-7035
703-305-6231
703-305-7016
703-305-7100
and Schools Initiative. Over 53 districts
in Michigan are in the process of being
certified using the IPM Star Program
along with 10 other districts nationally.
Another effective IPM program based on
a model developed by Monroe County,
Indiana, continues to be adopted
throughout the country. This model has
been launched throughout Florida
schools and continues to spark interest
in other states. The coalition in Arizona
continues to grow now including several
Native American tribal schools.
IPM programs are resulting in
measurable reductions in the use and
risk of pesticides. For example, member
Significant attention is being focused
on pesticide risk to children. The Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996 directed
EPA to re-examine risks to children and
set new standards incorporating poten-
tial cumulative exposures to children.
Even though they can be beneficial to
society, pesticides can be dangerous if
used carelessly and around children.
According to data collected from
the American Association of Poison
Control Centers, in 2002 alone, an
estimated 69,000 children less than six
years old were involved in common
household pesticide-related poisonings
or exposures in the United States.
Concerns about pesticide use in
schools are not
unfounded. A 1995
report by the
General Accounting
Office pointed to a
lack of control and
reporting of pesti-
_ cide use in schools.
I It cited numerous
reports of potential
risks from exposure
_ to pesticides.
Many surveys
have shown that
pesticides often are
(Continued on p. 26)
Page 25
-------
(Schools - from p. 25)
used illegally by unlicensed applicators
in schools.
Adopting integrated pest manage-
ment in a school is no easy task. There
are several different approaches that
states use to implement IPM. In each,
sanitation and the exclusion of pests play
critical roles in IPM.
In practicing IPM, there must also be a
financial commitment from top school
administrators for start-up costs. Along
with this support, there is the challenge of
sustaining any program that is initiated.
Through PESP, the Schools Sector
continues to improve regional coordina-
tion for IPM activities in schools and focus
on expanding the district school models for
state implementation. A pilot program
based on the Monroe Mode'/is underway in
the District of Columbia.
FPA will continue to work with newer
PESP members to educate and disseminate
information on safer pest management
practices. PESP will expand this sector and
focus its recruitment efforts on large
organizations that represent school business
officials, custodial personnel, and teachers.
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
Members of the Schools Sector
continue to identify models and approaches
that work. Partnering with state and local
educational institutions to implement a
model school by school is the process most
practiced. The activities and accomplish-
ments of sector members in adopting IPM
in schools follow:
Auburn University - Department of
Entomology & Plant Pathology
uses the Monroe Mo del to further
implement IPM in Alabama's schools.
Just recently, Auburn certified their
schools usingthe IPM Star Program.
IPM Institute of North America, Inc. is
working to increase the adoption of IPM
in schools nationwide through the
development of a schools certification
program. The TPMStar Program is
voluntary and includes a rigorous
evaluation of the school by an IPM
professional, a comprehensive set of
reports and recommendations, and
concerted effort by school
administrators, staff and contractors
to meet high standards for effective,
least-risk pest management. After the
schools complete these requirements,
then they are awarded a plaque for
recognition. The schools must
recertify their schools every three
years to ensure that their IPM
practices are sustainable. This year, the
following schools received
certification:
-AnneArundel County, MD
- Kyrene, AZ
-Auburn, AL
-Buffalo, NY
- Pittsburgh, PA
- several Michigan schools.
The IPM Institute was recognized as a
PESP Champion in 2004.
Kyrene Elementary School District was
one of the first elementary school
districts, outside of Monroe County, to
use the Monroe Model to implement
IPM. Kyrene School District has since
become the model for the Arizona State
Coalition that is implementing IPM in
schools statewide. The coalition has been
working with a pediatrician to identify
opportunities to educate school officials
and other health related occupations.
Monroe County School Corporation
with support from Indiana University
created one of the first models for
implementing IPM in schools. This
led to the Monroe Model tot
implementing IPM in schools
nationally. Monroe County School
Corporation is a recipient of the
Governor's Award for Risk
Reduction for several years and was
recognized as a PESP Champion in 2003.
Southwest School IPM Technical
Resource Center, initially funded by
EPA, provides technical assistance
and training for states to implement
IPM programs in their districts. They
have been creative in leveraging dollars
from many different sources to continue
their outreach efforts. This was their
third year that they sponsored the IPM
School Pride Awards.
University of Florida Cooperative
Extension Service manages the
National IPM in Schools Website, a one-
stop shop for information needed to
start an IPM program in a school or
school district. Recently, they have been
workingin partnership with experts
from the Monroe Model to implement
IPM in Florida schools.
Page 26
-------
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SECTOR
OVERVIEW
Sector Leader:
The Technology Transfer Sector is
currently composed of 16 members
whose principal focus is technology
transfer. Two of these
organizations recently
applied for member-
ship. As a group,
these organizations
transfer to pesticide
users' information and
economically viable
technologies that
support the adoption
of IPM and the safer
use and disposal of
pesticides.
For the most part,
they are non-profit
organizations that
share PESP's goals of
pesticide risk reduc-
tion, sustainable agriculture, and
environmental stewardship. As PESP
Supporters, they are not users of pesti-
cides, but through their varied activities,
they influence those who do use pesti-
cides by assisting users to adopt prac-
tices that reduce or eliminate pesticide
risk.
"Keeping a Step Ahead," as dis-
cussed in the NationalRoad Map for
IntegratedPestMan agement(Ma.j 17,
2004), aptly and succinctly underscores
the need for increased efforts in technol-
ogy transfer.
"IPM Practitioners must now, more
than ever, strive to implement best
management practices and tools to
incorporate a pest management regime
where strategies work in concert with
each other to achieve the desired effects
while posing the least risk. Current and
evolving conditions clearly signal the
need for the increased development and
adoption of IPM practices." IPM is a
dynamic process that continually
requires development and application of
new tools and technologies that work
effectively in integrated systems. PESP
has a roll to play in its various sectors.
CHALLENGES
Given the close alignment between
the goals of this sector's members and
those of PESP, there are many opportu-
nities for sharing information and
partnering. Technology transfer should
assume a more central position in PESP
Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center to be assigned
Allied Biological to be assigned
American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators to be assigned
American Bird Conservancy Pesticides & Birds Camp. to be assigned
Bio-Integral Resource Center Carol Frazer
Clemson University Public Service & Agriculture Glenn Williams
Crooked River Weed Management Area to be assigned
Farm & HomeFjivironmentalManagementPrograms DianaHorne
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Christina Swartz
Massachusetts IPM Council to be assigned
N ational C ouncil of Farmer Cooperatives Diana Home
National Pesticide Stewardship Alliance Nancy Fitz
Progressive Agriculture Foundation to be assigned
ReMetrix LLC N icole Zinn
Texas Pest Management Association to be assigned
Univ. of WI - C enter for Integrated Agric. Sy stems Driss Benmhend
both within and across sectors. Conse-
quently, EPA will seek to involve the
members of the sector more closely in
PESP's strategic planning, goal setting,
problem solving and direct actions that
increase the program's impact on
pesticide risk reduction, sustainable
agriculture, and environmental steward-
ship.
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
The followingmembers submitted
PESP strategies in 2004:
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC)is
dedicated to providing people with the
highest quality and most accurate
information on IPM and least-toxic pest
management for urban and agricultural
pestproblems. BIRC is a nationally
recognized expert in T2 concerning IPM
and reduced-risk, alternative pest
management. They publish two
journals, ThelPMPraftitionerand
maintain a Website with an emphasis on
IPM in schools. In 2004, BIRC reported
that it:
continued to build access to its publica-
tions, reaching a combined subscription
of 2,300 organizations and individuals;
continued public outreach via telephone,
email, and postal mail in responding to
over 5,000 requests for information;
mailed copies of IPM booklets and/or
back issues of its two journals,
totaling about 750 booklets or issues
for the year;
continued Website development by
703-308-8287 updating its organic and
reduced-risk pesticide
products databases, and
adding a referral
database for IPM pest
control companies;
continued training
programs focusing on
the California Structural
IPM Alliance and
PCOs that want to be
703-308-8367 proficient in IPM
703-305-7385 methods.
703-308-8810
703-308-8287
703-308-8367
703-305-5877
703-308-9525
703-308-7076 Farm & Home
Environmental
Management Program
supports voluntary pesticide risk
reduction actions by farmers,
ranchers, commercial landscapers
and urban and rural residents. They
help these groups assess pollution and
health risk on properties they
manage, develop plans to address
pesticide-related and other
environmental risks, create a record
of changes in environmental
management practices, and
communicate environmental
management progress to community
stakeholders. In 2004, the program
planned the following activities:
develop and disseminate information on
reducingpollution risks from pesticides
and on IPM, using publication of
educational materials, participation in
trade and government events, and
internet communications;
support state water quality pollution
prevention and assessment programs,
and state or private sector agriculture
Environmental Management Systems
initiatives, by performingnational
coordinating functions, serving as an
information clearinghouse, and
identifying funding support;
main tain and expand partnerships with
key agencies such as EPA, NRCS,
CSREES, andHUD through regular
communication with key agency officials,
(Continued on p. 28)
Page 27
-------
(Technology Transfer - from p. 27)
information sharing, joint projects
and interagency meetings;
support private sector organizations
and commodity groups in developing
custom risks assessment materials,
and build linkages with consumers
and related private sector groups to
better address health and environ-
mental risks;
educate the public in eluding youth
about the importance of individual
actions in protecting health and the
environment.
Texas Pest Management Association
(TPMA) focuses its effort on education
and research in support of IPM that
reduces pesticide use and risks while
maintainingprofitably for Texas growers.
In 2004, TPMA:
continued to work with TX Cooperative
Extension to demonstrate and promote
the diverse and new IPM technologies
that reduce pesticide risk while maintain-
ing/improvingprofitability;
expanded efforts in urban IPM to reduce
pesticide contamination ofwater and to
combat pests such as the red im-
ported fire ant;
developed apian to inform state
lawmakers during 2005 legislative
session about ways to expand grant
money for IPM in urban and rural
settings.
utilized PESP grant funds to initiate a
project to expand educational material
available on the internet for the general
public about Texas IPM programs;
developed IPM portal for rural and urban
Texas (ipm .tarn u.edu), providinglinks to
other sites for ag and urban pest
management and IPM newsletters.
University of Wisconsin Center for
Integrated Agricultural Systems
(CIAS) supports multidisciplinary
teams of faculty, staff, farmers, other
practitioners and the public that
pursue long-term, systems-oriented
research and outreach projects. Focus
is currently on emerging issues
associated with grazing, pesticide risk
reduction, value-added farming
strategies and beginning farming. Last
year, CIAS:
offered 16 workshops to growers,
particularly focusing on fresh market
Page 28
vegetable production, apple produc-
tion and corn/soybean cropping
systems;
completed a video for potato pest
management and began segments on
fresh market vegetables and apples;
secured funds to finalized IPM survey
for growers to assess IPM and
pesticide use in orchards;
secured funding to create two farmer
coaching networks to assist growers
improve IPM scores;
continued work on assessing toxicity
for specific pesticides; and
distributed five guidance products:
growing alliums, growing salad
greens, organic certification, cover
crops, and a resource CD;
supported the Think IPM. org Web site
and
distributed the Organicin Wisconsin
report, the basis for Governor's
Organic Agriculture Summit and
Task Force on
Organic Agriculture.
Among members
that support PESP but
did not submit strategies
in 2004:
Agricultural
Conservation
Innovation Center
works toward
improving farm land
conservation through
greater adoption of
IPM, nutrient
management,
conservation tillage
and other proven,
alternative best
management practices
that reduce adverse impacts on land
and water. It developed a financial
risk management tools to support the
adoption of IPM and alternative
practices.
American Association of Pesticide
Safety Educators certifies and trains
at the regional and national level.
Working with state, territorial,
provincial, tribal and federal agencies,
the Association:
promoted the protection of human
health and the environment through
high quality pesticide safety and risk
ipm
mitigation education;
developed non-English materials for
pesticide safety education;
addressed certification and training
assessment, endangered species, global
harmonization and classification of
pesticides, and national strategies for
health care providers and pesticides;
participated in the State FIFRA Issues
Research and Evaluation Group.
American Bird Conservancy supports
efforts to reduce risks to wild birds from
pesticides. Amongits strategies are:
engaging the public and non-profit
organizations in bird conservation
networks;
servingas an information and advocacy
hub;
workingto cancel registrations ofthe
most dangerous pesticides when
necessary;
encouraging public support of
sustainable agricul-
tural practices such
as organic farming
and IPM and use of
pesticides, only when
needed, that target
specific pests and
pose the least risk to
people and birds.
Clem son
University provides
economically sound
solutions for IPM
practitioners, and
the necessary tools
and encouragement
to progress along the
IPM continuum. Its
activities include:
transferring its research results to the
public through extension, education,
and outreach; workingto reduce
risks from pesticides in cotton,
melon, and squash production, and
through organic farming systems;
developing an IPMHoase as a model
for teachingyoungpeople about
residential IPM;
developing an integrated management
strategy for red imported fire ants
with EPA, USDA/ARS, DoD, and
the National Guard and training pest
management coordinators on this
new strategy.
-------
Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy seeks to reduce the adverse
health and environmental impact of
agricultural pesticides through
education and outreach and ensure
that pesticide monitoring in
Minnesota is consistent with public
health protection. The institute:
develops decision tools for farmers to
reduce the adverse impacts of
pesticides on groundwater and
surface water;
conducts educational forums and
workshops on incentives for environ-
mental stewardship on farms;
maintains a Minnesota Pesticide
Resource Center Website, IPM
assessment tools for crops, and
bibliography of pesticide safety
training materials for Spanish
speaking farm workers;
maintains a Website for sharinginforma-
tion on emerging stories that affect
sustainable agriculture and other
resource uses.
National Council of Farmer
Cooperativespromotes non-regulatory,
common sense strategies to reduce
pesticide risks. It creates voluntary
partnerships, serves as an information
source and facilitative liaison with its
members, encourages its members to
participate in PESP, and facilitates
new reduced-risk business and
outreach initiatives.
National Pesticide Stewardship
Alliance serves a key forum for
facilitating communication and
cooperation on pesticide stewardship.
By means of annual conferences,
publications, and outreach efforts on
the internet, the Alliance seeks to
increase the effectiveness, efficiency
and longevity of existing and future
pesticide stewardship efforts. Its
particular focus has been the support
of improved pesticide disposal and
pesticide recycling programs.
ReMetrix LLC, a private company, uses
advanced technologies nationwide for
the assessment of critical
environmental and recreational
resources such as lakes, rivers,
wetlands, and golf courses.
Technologies and services include:
geographic information systems;
ground, aerial and SCUBA diver
surveys assisted by the global
positioning system (GPS);
aerial and satellite image acquisition;
hyperspectral video imaging;
digital image processing; digital
mapping; and data reduction and
analyses.
It can combine these tools to
produce integrated aquatic vegetation
management plans, bathymetric
surveys, GPS/GISmaps for water
resource management, wetlands
surveys and inventories, and golf
course management information
systems.
Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture has an endangered
species program to assist landowners,
managers, and others in the
protection of endangered and
threatened species and their habitats
from pesticide injury and related
impacts. Affected parties participate
in the development of protection
plans, site and species monitoring,
and invasive species control. It also
provides information about species
and pesticides to the public.
TREE FRUIT & NUTS SECTOR
OVERVIEW
The U.S. tree fruit and nuts industry
is made up of nearly 5 million acres of
farmland which generate over 12.8
billion dollars in
annual production
revenues. The Tree
Fruit and Nuts
Sector consist of 16
grower organizations
within this industry.
Sector members
represent 90%ofU.S.
almond and walnut
growers, 96% of
pistachio growers,
99% of prune
growers, 75% of
eastern cherry
growers, and all of
the nation's 7,000
apple growers.
Regional partners include represent
northwestern, northeastern, and south-
eastern peach growers, Hawaiian papaya
Sector Leader:
Members
Almond Board of California
California Citrus Research Board
California Dried Plum Board
California Pear Organizations
C alifornia Pear Advisory Board
California Pear Growers
Pacific Coast Producers
Pear Pest Management Research Fund
California Pistachio Commission
GeorgiaPeach Council
Hawaii Papaya Industry Association
Hood River Grower-Shipper Association
Michigan Cherry Committee
Sunkist Growers
U.S. Apple Association
Walnut Marketing Board
Winter Pear Control Committee
Wisconsin Apple Growers Association
Cheryl Greene
Liaisons
Kathy Davis
Mary Grisier
Carol Frazer
to be assigned
growers, California's citrus and plum
growers, and pear growers in the Pacific
Northwest. Nearly half of the members
of this sector represent agricul-
tural commodities grown in
California.
703-308-0352
703-308-7002
415-9474213
703-308-8810
Tobi Colvin-Sny der
Jim Downing
Julie Heflin
Cheryl Greene
Sherry Click
Todd Peterson
JoeHogue
Russell Jones
to be assigned
Barbara VanTil
703-305-7801
703-308-9071
703-308-9086
703-308-0352
703-308-7035
703-308-7224
703-308-9072
703-308-5071
312-886-3164
CHALLENGES
During2004, growers in this
sector faced several unexpected
challenges that could compromise
short-term efforts to advance
pesticide reduced risk practices. In
addition to increasingglobal
competition and domestic
economic pressures, members in
the southeast region of the
country have had to salvage and
protect crops impacted by an
unusual number of hurricanes this
year. Growers in the northeast
(Continued on p. 30)
Page 29
-------
(Tree Fruit & Nuts - from p. 29)
are likewise working to recover from the
impact of unusually severe weather
events. Consequently, these members
and others are facing the added challenge
of maintaining pesticide risk reduction
practices and successes as they reestab-
lish damaged or destroyed crops,
markets and pro fit margins.
In addition, commodities produced
within certain IPM programs are at a high
risk of export bans because of the potential
for growers to inadvertently transport
insects such as coddlingmoth alongwith
U.S. fruit shipments. In response to
possible export bans growers groups within
this sector-particularly those in the western
region of the country-are under added
pressure to protect their crops against ever
tightening export restrictions on plant
diseases and pests while attempting to
preserve reduced risk pest management
practices as they take actions.
Many of the pest problems and
management issues are shared by grower
groups across the sector. For example, the
plum curculio, scale insects, codlingmoth,
and lesser and greater peach tree borers
continue to pose significant economic,
research, and transition problems for sector
members growing different crops in
Georgia, Michigan, California and Oregon.
Although the organophosphate pesticides
azinphos-methyl and malathion have been
the prevailing controls for these commodi-
ties, regional and geographical differences
dictate that each grower group address
reduced risk and sustainable alternatives
practices such as pheromone baits and traps
differently.
A related challenge for members of this
sector continues to be access to new
Page 30
technologies and rapidly changing
resources. To maximize successes and
minimize time transitioning to reduced
risk and environmental sustainable pest
management practices, member grower
groups and their constituents need real-
time, credible and actionable informa-
tion.
Most members in this sector are
taking the lead in addressing this need.
Grower groups are designing and
employing innovative means of commu-
nicating new and emerging technologies
to agricultural and environmental
stakeholders as well as the general
public.
For example, the Almond Board of
California conducted extensive outreach,
educational and demonstration pro-
grams. The Walnut Marketing Board by
way of the Pest Management Alliance
used its model communications system
(which includes demonstrating reduced-
risk practices) to increase field trials and
direct and attract research directly
relevant to developing economic
reduced risk practices for growers.
Additionally, this group regularly
produces a specialty newsletter focusing
on Walnut Biologically Integrated
Orchard Systems and projects and holds
regular stakeholder meetings to commu-
nicate with advances.
Given these and other challenges in
2004, all members of the Tree Fruit and
Nuts Sector, continued their efforts to
find replacements for environmentally
risky pesticides and production manage-
ment practices while identifying
effective and sustainable controls for
new and resurfacing pests.
SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
Almond Board of California, a PESP
Champion for the second consecutive
year, continued its pesticide
risk reduction goals by
advancing its research toward
implementing a mating
disruption program for the
control of the naval
orangeworm. The
orangeworm is a cross-
commodity pest which to
varying degrees currently
undermines almond,
pistachio, orange, and fig
crops. For 2004, the board
dedicated $850,000 to new and
continuing research and development
of IPM techniques that will enable
growers to reduce their reliance on
higher risk pesticides. Projects
continued for 2004 included:
mating disruption for naval
orangeworm,
role of natural enemies for leafroller
and leaffooted bugs,
biology and management of ten lined
June beetle,
attractants for ten-lined June beetle,
insect and mite IPM research
In addition, the Almond Board
began or continued the following
environmental stewardship activities:
environmental stewardship campaign,
spray swath analysis/drift manage-
ment,
reducing imp act of dormant sprays,
linking Almond Board to Central
Valley Watershed Coalitions,
emission factors for almond harvest-
ing,
minimizing emissions, and
chloropicrin fumigation.
California Citrus Research Board
sponsors and supports research for
the state's citrus industry. During
2004, pesticide reduced risk activities
included:
studies and demonstrations that
promote IPM;
funding research in plant management
and physiology, plant improvement,
pathology, entomology, exotic pests,
and post-harvest studies;
Devaluating research priorities to
address near-term and long-range
commodity needs; promoting
activities and actions to prevent pest
introductions into the state's citrus
industry which would increase
pesticide use and disrupt successful
IPM activities.
-------
California Dried Plum Board works to
improve commodity quality, production,
and environmental stewardship of plum
production by funding technical field,
food safety, and environmental hazard
research. During 2004, the board
conducted alternative farming system
demonstrations which featured an
economic, low environmental risk
prune farmingprogram. The system
utilizes low risk pest control, nutrition
and water-use practices monitoring
practices, and pest threshold models.
utilized approximately 34 volunteer
farms to conduct integrated prune
farming practices research and
demonstrate outcomes.
California Pear Organizations- California
Pear Advisory Board, California Pear
Growers, Pear Pest Management
Research Fund, and Pacific Coast
Producers -work cooperatively to
address market and orchard management
issues affecting California pear growers.
Activities included:
funding research into low risk alterna-
tives to control damage from russet,
scab, surface-feeding insects, and
codlingmoths; and
encouraginggrowers to adopt low risk
alternatives.
California Pistachio Commission
provides support to over 500 member
growers through public relations,
government relations, and marketing and
production research. During 2004, the
commission:
continued research on naval
orangeworm pheromone components,
synthesis and improved traps;
continueddevelopingnew attractants
for naval orangeworm oviposition
traps;
researched alternatives to organophos-
phate and carbamate insecticides used
in pistachio production.
Georgia Peach Council is the educational
and outreach organization for peach
producers in Georgia and South
Carolina. Activities initiated or
completed in 2004 included:
completed initial field trial testing of a
pheromone for lesser-peach tree borer
control in northeastern peach produc-
tion;
conducted ongoing research on the IPM-
based control of plum curculio;
hosted the National Peach Council
convention;
partnered with six universities to obtain
$102million USDA RAMP grant for
Risksln Eastern Peaches ($70,000 for a
reduced risk program for managing the
lesser peach tree borer);
partnered with University of Georgia to
obtain a $90,000 EPA Strategic Agricul-
tural Initiative grant for validation of
pheromone concentrations required to
control lesser peach tree borer.
Hood River Grower-Shipper Association
(HRGSA) represents growers,
packinghouse and agrichemical company
field representatives, independent
consultants, and university personnel in
northern Oregon and southern
Washington. This group is responsible for
the development and direction of the
Hood River District Integrated Fruit
Production Program. In 2004, HRGSA:
continued its efforts to advance a strategy
for controllingnon-agricultural
coddling moth populations created by
urban and industrial encroachment on
fruit orchards;
upgraded and increased the number of
regional weather stations to assist
growers in achieving better control of
pests and disease with fewer spray
applications;
continued cooperative research with
Oregon State University to determine
reasons for codling moth control
failures and to improve forecast models;
worked with local packers, pesticide
suppliers, and Oregon State University
Extension to develop best management
practices to help minimize the possibil-
ity of pesticides and herbicides entering
waterways.
Michigan Cherry Committee provides
market and economic development
opportunities for the Michigan cherry
industry and supports and represents the
more than 1,000 cherry growers in the
state. In 2004, the committee:
continued evaluation of cherry fruit fly
traps and baits under organophosphate,
OP-alternative, or unsprayed condi-
tions;
continued testing and evaluation of
spinosad GF-120 and some newly
proposed pesticides for control of plum
curculio and cherry fruit fly;
continued efforts to develop reduced risk
leaf spot and brown rot disease control
strategies;
co-sponsored the Michigan crop tour.
Walnut Marketing Board works to reduce
pesticide application in California's
walnut orchards and supports innovation
and continuous improvement in walnut
grow ing and processing. During 2004, the
board cooperated with the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation and
Walnut Pest Management Alliance to:
advance work to verify and demonstrate
to growers that Codling Moth F
spray able pheromone at lower rates can
be integrated into the codling moth
control program to reduce insecticides
at no additional cost to growers;
increase its number of research sites for
testing and comparing reduced
pesticide controls (pheromones) against
standard pest treatments;
establish demonstration sites to evaluate
economical and effective lower-risk
alternatives to conventional pesticides;
successfully demonstrated codling moth
mating disruption with the use of
Suterra CM-F, and 3-M pheromone in
spray able formulations;
initiated a w alnut blight demonstration
program using the xanthocast model;
worked with theNature Conservancy to
conduct field trials on more than 1,000
acres of environmentally sensitive land;
published Walnut Research Reports.
Wisconsin Apple Growers Association
unites commercial apple growers in
common pursuits, provides consumer
education, and supports research and
market development. Their activities
included an IPM program focused on
keeping growers apprised of current
techniques and information exchange
opportunities. In 2004, the association:
began field testing and refining a
pesticide risk reduction standard;
hosted Wisconsin Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Conference, a forum for
growers and researchers to communi-
cate IPM techniques and advances; and
hosted Wisconsin Apple Field Days, an
outlet for growers and researchers to
demonstrate and discuss innovative
IPM techniques and orchard manage-
ment strategies.
Winter Pear Control Committee
represents and supports growers and
shippers of fresh winter pears grown
commercially in Oregon and
Washington.
Page 31
-------
VEGETABLES SECTOR
Sector Leader:
OVERVIEW
The Vegetables Sector consists of six
organizations indudingtwo grower groups
and three research boards. These
organizations play a
key role in providing
research, outreach,
and technology
transfer among
growers and a link to
current research being
conducted by univer-
sity and agriculture
extension agencies.
Sector members are vegetable
growers and associations partially
representative of the 54,000 vegetable
farms growing vegetables on 6.75 million
acres in the United States. These farms
contribute to the 2,000 pounds of
produce each U.S. citizen consumes
annually, as well as fresh market exports
totalingmore than 39 million cwt (1.95
million tons).
CHALLENGES
Producers use over 4.6 million acre
treatments of organophosphate and
carbamate pesticides annually, which
represent 15% ofpesticides used on
vegetable crops.
The major challenge this sector faces is
to develop pest management options that
reduce pesticide risk but are effective,
affordable, and economically feasible for the
producer. IPM techniques must be
refined to increase effectiveness and
reduce uncertainty about their use. On
high value crops with very tight margins,
growers cannot afford to gamble on
unproven pest management strategies.
Vegetable farmingis labor intensive
and has relatively high crop values per acre,
making more intensive pest management
feasible. This high per-acre value,
coupled with the visibility and public
sensitivity to pesticide residue issues,
provides an even greater opportunity and
incentive for vegetable growers to
implement reduced-risk practices.
The long-term goal of this sector is
to lead the nation in finding ways to
reduce pesticide residues, thus potential
exposure to pesticides by the public,
especially children. Our nation's
Page 32
children, a particularly sensitive
population, eat a great deal of produce
(fresh and minimally processed), hence
the need for attention to pest manage-
ment strategies in this sector.
were conducted and compared with
1,3-dichloropropene and metam
sodium applications;
researched the use of mustard cover
crops (Rrassicajunced) which, when
Artichoke Research Association
California Fresh Carrot Advisory Board
California Lettuce Research Board
California Tomato Commission
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
Michigan Asparagus Research, Inc.
New England Vegetable & Berry Growers Association
Regina Langton
Liaisons
Carol Frazer
Gail Tomimatsu
Cindy Wire
Gail Tomimatsu
Lora Schroeder
Christina Scheltema
Mary Clock-Rust
703-305-7161
703-308-8810
703-308-8543
415-9474242
703-308-8543
404-562-9015
703-308-2201
703-308-2718
SECTOR MEMBERS AND 2004
ACTIVITIES
Artichoke Research Association was
named a 2004 PESP Champion for
helping artichoke producers adopt
risk reduction approaches in a
consistent, goal-oriented way. Some
accomplishments reported in 2004
included:
use of 300-day puffer for mating
disruption of the artichoke plume
moth and its impressive 25-30 percent
reduction in the use of conventional
pesticides in the first year;
useofthepheromone (Z-ll-
hexadeceneal) in mating disruption of
the artichoke plume moth.
California Fresh Carrot Advisory
Board supports research involving
biological, cultural, physical, and
chemical pest control methodologies.
Research findings are used to create
safer, cost-effective pest control
programs for carrots. In 2004, the
board:
continued research on alternatives to
soil fumigation with 1,3-
dichloropropene or metam sodium
for nematode control. Trials with
cover crops (trap crops) as well as
with biological control materials
broken down in the
soil, release
compounds that are
lethal to bacteria
and fungi.
California Lettuce
Research Board
invests in research
on iceberg and leaf
lettuce, with great emphasis on plant
breeding, post-harvest activities, pest
and disease management, and nutrient
research. In 2004, the board
supported:
research to assess the potential impact
of the loss of diazinon to control soil
insects. Preliminary efficacy data were
obtained by comparingthe standard
conventional treatment of diazinon
with synthetic pyrethroids. Preliminary
data indicate that synthetic pyrethroids
may be effective replacements; and
research to assess the impact of thrips
populations on both domestic and
export lettuce quality at harvest. Data are
being obtained from both the northern
coastal and southern desert regions.
Comparisons will be made between
standard thrips management pesticides
(e.g. methomyl) and the conventional
(i.e. Success) and organic formulations
(i.e. Entrust) of the reduced risk product
spinosad.
California Tomato Commission funds
research on IPM and regional reduced-
risk programs for fresh tomato growers,
handlers, and crop advisors. The
commission focused on alternatives to
the higher-risk pesticides designated by
FQPA and on worker safety. In 2004,
CTC reported the following
research to identify pest resistance in
tomatos;
research on the use of pheromone traps
for stink bugs;
evaluation of the effectiveness ofnatural
stink bugpredators for stink bug
control;
tested product mixes including pyre-
throid and chloronicotinyl materials
and pyrethroids with IGRs for
-------
control of stink bugs.
developed new biotechnical tools for
detection of curly top viruses in both
plants andleafhoppers.
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
focuses on the identification of pest
management tools that reduce
pesticide risk to humans and the
environment. The association
encouraged positive communication
among Florida agricultural
stakeholders through education and
training activities, and by sponsoring
field tours and meetings for pesticide
users, industry, regulatory agencies,
and others in the environmental
community.
Michigan Asparagus Research, Inc.
funds research projects that aid in
reducing pesticide use and in the
transition to reduced risk pesticides. It
also funds projects to increase the
adoption ofon-farm scouting as a
strategy to expand the use of disease
forecasting systems. In 2004, they
reported on trials underway to evaluate
chemical and biological treatments
on T
-------
(StrategicAg - from p. 33)
New England Vegetable and Berry
Grower's Association - Enhanced
Sustainability of New England
Vegetable Growers through Increased
Use of IPM and Reduced Use of
High Risk Pesticides
Red Tomato - Economic Incentives
for High Toxicity Pesticide Reduc-
tion in Northeast Apples
REGION 2
continues to strengthen our partner-
ship with NRCS. Projects selected for
fun ding this year:
RutgersCooperativeExtension-
Blueberry Reduced Risk Integrated Crop
Management System for New Jersey
REGION 3
continues partnerships with the diverse
agricultural sectors within the region.
Projects selected for funding this year:
PennsylvaniaAssoriationof Sustain-
able Agriculture-Production Methods
to Reduce Pesticide U se on the Farm: A
Farm Based Education Series
Pennsylvania Department of Agricul-
ture - Greenhouse Integrated Pest
Management for the Amish & Menno-
nite Community ofLancaster County.
Pennsylvania Department of Agricul-
ture - Implementing Greenhouse
Integrated Pest Management in
Southwestern Pennsylvania
University of Delaware-Pest Control
Survey in LimaBeansin Delaware and
Eastern Shore Maryland
University of Maryland - Integrated
Disease Management System for
Reducing Fungicide U se in Watermelon
National Audubon Society (Pickering
Creek, MD, Audubon Society) - Organic
Alternatives of Mid-Atlantic Grain
Producers
REGION 4
developed an
environmental
indicators
program that
includes three
categories of
measures: short,
long, and very
long-term. This
model is being
modified and
adopted by other
EPA Regions. Projects selected for
funding this year:
Clemson University - Demonstra-
tion of Refined Treatment Thresh-
olds for Sucking Bugs in Advanced
B.t. Varieties to Reduce Insecticide
Use in Cotton
GeorgiaOrganics-Reducing Pesticide
Use in Fruit and Vegetable Produc-
tion in Georgia
University of Tennessee - Develop-
ment and Promotion of Management
Program for the Grape Root Borer
University of Florida and Clemson
University - Multi-State Strawberry
IPM On-farm Research and Imple-
mentation
REGION 5
presented FQPA and IPM updates
to over 120 apple and blueberry growers,
researchers and extension specialists in
three states. Projects selected for
funding this year:
Center for Agricultural Partner-
ships - Putting the Farm Bill to Work:
Increasing the Ability of Michigan
Asparagus, Cherry and Nursery
Producers to Adopt Reduced Risk
IPM Practices
Michigan State University - Multi-
faceted IPM training to reduce
pesticide risk in Michigan vineyards
Michigan State University - Multi-
state agroecology network linking
farmers and scientists in Michigan,
Illinois and Indiana
Protected Harvest - Using Tradi-
tional Retail Market Launch Strate-
gies to Increase the Adoption of IPM
in Wisconsin Fields
University of Wisconsin - Pesticide
risk reduction in Wisconsin apple
production
Page 34
REGION 6
continues to build partnerships with
minor crop commodity groups and
USDA/CSREES. Projects selected for
funding this year:
Texas A&M Cooperative Extension
Service - Use of Integrated Weed
Management in Strategies and
Computer Technologies to Reduce
Environmental Impact in Corn and
Cotton Production
University of Arkansas - Pesticide
Pollution Risk Assessment of
Mitigation Trainingin the Arkansas
Delta
LouisianaStateUniversity-Chemical
Management of Stem-Boring Insects in
Environmentally Sensitive
Agroecosy stems
Oklahoma State University -
Validation of a Sampling Plan for
Classifying Cereal Aphid Parasitism
Levels and Predicting Suppression in
Winter Wheat
REGION 7
is workingwith grantees to develop
environmental measures/indicators.
Projects selected for funding this year:
Missouri Department of Agriculture -
Reducing Insecticide U se on Missouri
Bootheel Produced Watermelons.
Kansas State University-Evaluation of
Sunflowers as a Trap Crop
REGION 8
is making significant progress promot-
ingthe SAIprogram and establishing new
partnerships. Projects selected for funding
this year:
Organic Farming Research
Foundation - Organic Farming
Research for Weed, Disease, and
Insect Pest Management;
Colorado State University, West-
-------
ern Colorado Research Center -
Application of Crop Modeling for
Sustainable Grape Production - 2
Year Extension (continuation of 2002
SAI grant)
Colorado State University -
Innovative Precision Management
Strategies to Reduce Pesticides and
Nitrogen Loading Into Soil for
Sustainable Agricultural Production
Systems (continuation of2003 SAI
grant)
Colorado State University -
Biological Control of Field Bind-
weed by Aceria m ahlerbae(& mite
species) (continuation of 2003 SAI
grant)
REGION 9
worked with USDA/NRCSin
California to update the EQIP pest
management standard, and jointly
selected two pilot projects that leverage
EPA and USDA dollars:
Projects selected for funding this
year:
University of Hawaii/Kaneohe
Co.- Increasing Food Safety and
Minimizing Risk for Hawaii's Small
Scale Farming Communities
Center for Agricultural Partnerships-
Puttingthe Farm Bill to Work: A
Program to In crease the Ability of
Northern California Specialty Crop
Producers to Access EQIP
UniversityofC alifor nia Regent s,
University of California, Davis-
Implementation and Extension of
Refined Management Strategies for
Egyptian Alfalfa Weevil in
California Alfalfa
California Department of Pesticide
Regulation - Reducing use of FQPA
pesticides in Stone Fruit Orchards in
California's San Joaquin Valley
University of California Sustain-
able Agriculture Research and
Education Program -Enhancing
Biologically Integrated Farming
Systems (BIFS) for Lettuce on the
Central Coast of Californi
REGION 10
was able to add to SAI resources this
year by leveraging funds from a new
EPA initiative, Community Action for a
Renewed Environment. The additional
funding allowed the region to incorpo-
rate water quality and irrigation manage-
ment elements into existing SAI His-
panic orchardist pest management
training.
Projects selected for funding this
year:
Optimized IPM & Washington
Tree Fruit Research Commission -
Codling Moth Control Implementa-
tion through Fruit PackingHouse
Cooperation in the Yakima Valley
and Columbia Basin, WA
Washington State University and
Washington State University
Extension - Control of loopers and
cutworms through bait and kill
technique in the Columbia Basin of
Washington & Northern Oregon
Washington State University &
Washington State Concord Grape
Research Council - Yakima Valley
Cutworms Climb No More. Moths
Take a Whiff and Die
Peerbolt Crop Management,
Washington State University &
USDA/ARS -Implementation of an
area-wide IPM program for leafroller
contaminants in caneberries in
Southwestern Washington and
Western Oregon
Washington State University and
Washington State University
Extension - Enhancing Widespread
Adoption of Weather-related
Decision Support Tools (building on
AgWeatherNet program) through
Education in Wenatchee Valley and
Waluke Slope, Washington
Simone IPM Consulting / Center
for Agricultural Partnerships -
Hispanic Tree Fruit Grower and
Risk Pest Management Strategies in
Northern Washington
Page 35
-------
IPM IN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE
The overarching goal for the
National IPM in Schools Initiative is to
protect children from unnecessary
exposure to pesticides. By implementing
integrated pest management in our
nation's schools and making a connec-
tion to pesticide safety and awareness in
the home, EPA is providing education
and reducing pesticide risks both in our
nation's schools and residences.
Children are among the most vulner-
able to the effects of pesticides. Fortu-
nately, schools can significantly decrease
and ultimately eliminate their use of the
most toxic pesticides while successfully
and cost-effectively managing pest
problems in school buildings and on
school grounds. Safer pest management
strategies such as IPM use alternatives to
prevailing chemical-intensive practices.
IPM is a program of pest prevention,
monitoring, and control that offers the
opportunity to eliminate or drastically
reduce conventional pesticide use in schools.
An IPM program makes use of cultural,
mechanical, biological, and other non-toxic
practices, and includes judicious use of
pesticides when necessary.
ACTIVITIES
Pesticides and Schools Workgroup
EPA provides coordination and
leadership of the National IPM in Schools
Initiative through PESP and the OPP
Pesticides in Schools Workgroup. Consist-
ing of OPP and regional staff, the
workgroup works to promote the adoption
of IPM in schools through communica-
tions, targeted funding, and guidance.
Major accomplishments included:
Increased involvement in the OPP's
Pesticide and School Workgroup to
include both Region 1 and 4;
Presentations by IPM experts -Janet
Hurley, Texas A&M; Marc Lame,
Indiana University; Tom Green, IPM
Institute of North America;
Updated the EPA Pesticides and
Schools Website: iviviv.epa.gov/
pesticides/ipm to include improved
information on IPM adoption;
Increased distribution of the popular
brochure, Protecting Children in
Schools fro m Pests an d Pesticides at
several conferences including EPA's
Page 36
Tools for Schools National Sympo-
sium, Children's Health Summit, and
many other state conferences/
training sessions;
Reviewed EPA's Healthy EMvironm en-
talAssessment Tool, which is being
developed by the Office of
Children's Health Protection.
In addition to these accomplish-
ments, the workgroup provided guidance
and support that resulted in the imple-
mentation of the following IPM in
schools model projects.
OPP Pesticides in Schools Workgroup
Chair: Sherry Click 703-308-7035
Participants
Ruth Allen 703-305-7191
Linda Arrington 703-305-5446
Donald Baumgartner 312-886-7835
DarleneDinkins 703-305-5214
Mary Grisier 415-947-4213
Deborah Hartman 703-305-7100
RobKoethe 617-918-1535
404-562-9016
Troy Pierce
Monroe Model Pilot Programs
The Monroe Model was named after
the Monroe County Community School
Corporation (MCCSC) in Indiana where
the program was first undertaken.
MCCSC has been a PESP Champion and
recipient of the Indiana's Governor's
Award for Risk Reduction.
The Monroe Model takes a hands-on
approach, starting with the identification
o^ change agents in a given school area.
Its results are measurable a 92%
reduction in pesticide use and a 50%
reduction in most
traditional
applications.
Based on
Indiana's success
in implementing
IPM in its
schools, the
model was
piloted in several
parts of the
country and
positively
impacted over
one million
children.
Pilot programs and accomplish-
ments in 2004 b ased on the Mo nroe Mo del
included:
District of Columbia Public Schools
System, with funding from a
NFIPME grant, began pilots in three
schools: Woodson High School,
Shepherd Elementary, and Hart
Middle School. Because of competing
priorities, this project has had a slow
start and there is not yet a demon-
strated commitment to adopting
school IPM on a larger scale.
However, EPA and several other
groups, including Beyond Pesticides,
have been encouraging officials to
regain their commitment to school
IPM;
State of Florida, led by efforts from
the University of Florida and leaders
ofthe Monroe Model, are charging
ahead to implement IPM in their
state schools. By the end of 2005, all
schools in Florida will be practicing
IPM.
The Florida IPM project began with
three pilot schools in Brevard
County. By mid-2005, there will be
90 schools from Brevard County and
185 schools from Palm Beach County
utilizing the Mo nroe Mo del.
Kyrene School District continues to
provide a model for adoption of IPM
in Arizona schools statewide. After
realizing a 90% reduction in pesticide
use and an 85% drop in pests through-
out their 25 schools, the program has
become part of an initiative led by
-------
the Arizona Department of Environ-
mental Quality, Arizona Coalition
for IPM School Adoption and
Arizona State University to improve
children's health.
To enhance implementation of school
IPM and further healthy schools in
general, Arizona State University has
begun working with a pediatrician to
identify health issues and measures
that affect learningin the Arizona
school environments.
IPM Star Program from thelPM
Institute of North America, a PESP
member, continues to certify and
recognize schools nationally for
adopting IPM. The program contin-
ues to be adopted nationally by many
school districts including school
districts in Alabama, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Indiana, Maine, Mary-
land, Pennsylvania and Washington.
IPM Insti tute of North Americahas
certified 12 school systems to date using
their IPM Star Program, impactingmore
than l.Smillion school children. There
are another four school districts in
progress. Overall, schools raised their
scores 12percentage points between the
time of the evaluation and the final
reports.
IPM Institute of North America is also
developinga database that will enable
schools and others tochoosethe least
toxic option to manage pests. To learn
more about this, visit their website at:
www ipm institute.org/schooljiest_control/
home htm
Beyond Pesticides is workingwith EPA
to implement IPM in schools. They
have developed a site for consumers to
identify pest management companies in
their area that can remedy their pest
problem s without using dangerous
pesticides. For more information on
the directory, see their website at:
m m m.beyondpestiddes.org/safetysoune/
low a State University sponsored the
Midwest School IPM Conference in
March. The meetinginduded discus-
sions on the challenges of adopting
IPM, pest identification, landscaping
schools, trap placements and mandated
vs. voluntary adoption. Participants
included EPA Regions 5 and 7, and state
representatives from Kansas, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and
South Dakota.
LAWNS & THE ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE
The National Lawns and Environ-
ment (L&E) Initiative began in 2002 with
the goal of encouraging environmentally
responsible lawn and landscaping
practices in residential landscape
creation and maintenance. EPA is one
member of the initiative, which is
producing Guideiinesfor an Environmen-
tally Responsible Landscape. Other L&E
members include:
Agronomy & Horticulture Services LLC
American Nursery & Landscaping
Association
Businesses for the Bay, Chesapeake Bay
Program, and Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay
Center for Resource Management
Golf Course Superintendents Association
ofAmerica
National GardeningAssociation
N ational Wildlife Federation
Professional Lawn Care Association
Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment
Rutgers Cooperative Extension
San Antonio Water System
The Scotts Company
TruGreen Companies
TheToro Company
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service
A national
stakeholder
conference took
place in March of
2004, in San
Antonio, Texas,
to continue
development of
the guidelines.
Conferees
recommended
that several
models be
developed to
evaluate the
impact of the
L&E guidelines
on the environ-
mental situation
of a community. They also recom-
mended that the educational methods be
evaluated to determine which are most
effective in changing environmental
behavior of selected neighborhoods
within a community.
EPA Region 3 has begun a demon-
stration project for Spring2005
(iv iv iv .epa.go v /regSiv cm d/
pesticideslaiv n .htm). The project com-
bines the outreach component of
responsible lawn care and landscaping
with environmental measurements to
demonstrate the success of an intensive
neighborhood educational program.
By achieving measurable results,
Region 3 hopes to document the success
of educational outreach on changing
human behaviors to enhance the
environmental quality of residential
landscapes. The objectives of the
demonstration are to:
educate the residential community on
environmentally responsible
methods of lawn care and landscap-
ing,
document the success of an intensive
outreach program in a controlled
area using approved environmental
measures; and
justify expansion of the initiative's
outreach program to a larger
geographic area.
San Antonio, Texas, was selected as
the site for a second demonstration
because of its aggressive and successful
educational programs in water conserva-
tion and water quality. The water
(Continued on p. 38)
Page 37
-------
(Turf - from p. 37)
quality agreement negotiated with
developers of the PGA Golf Resort over
the Edwards Aquifer provides opportu-
nities to test environmental educational
methods.
The goal of the demonstration
project is to measure the environmental
advantages when a neighborhood
follows the Lawns and Environment
guidelines. Specifically, the project will
compare water use, stormwater runoff,
biological characteristics, and aesthetic
qualities between neighborhoods that
follow the guidelines and neighborhoods
that do not.
The purpose is to determine which
educational methods are effective in
promoting the guidelines to the extent
that they change environmental behavior
and increase environmental quality..
MEASURING SUCCESS
Another recommendation to emerge
from the San Antonio meeting was for the
Initiative to look at ways to measure the
success of the program. One measure
that is being developed from the Guide-
tin esfo r an En v in n m en tally Re span sible
Lan dscape is the En v in n m en tal Sco re card.
Based on the guidelines, the National
Gardening Institute created the
scorecard using 12 questions that a
consumer can easily answer. The
initiative hopes to eventually use the
scorecard to assess the impact.
The scorecard is a very inexpensive w ay
to measure changes in consumer behaviors.
One goal of the demonstration programs is
to link the public education programs to
changes in the scorecard. And then changes
in the scorecard with real environmental
outcomes with respect to water use and
water quality.
2004 ENVIRONMENTAL LAWN AND GARDEN SCORECARD
Which, if any, of the lawn, garden and landscaping practices listed below will
your household follow at home this year?
Households with
Yard or Garden
Environmentally Friendly Lawn and Garden Practices % Million
Keep your yard safe, clean and well maintained to add
beauty to your home and neighborhood 67 60
Water your lawn and plants only when they need it.
Use water wisely 65 59
Read and follow the label carefully when using
pesticides and fertilizers 53 47
Leave grass clippings in place on your lawn. 45 41
Keep fertilizer, pesticide, yard and pet waste out of
water sources and off pavement. 43 39
Choose and use the right plants in the right spot for your
climate, sun/shade, soil and rain fall. 42 37
Apply mulch around trees, shrubs or garden areas 42 37
Cut your lawn at the highest recommended mower setting 39 35
Before using pesticides to control insects or weeds make
Sure the problem is correctly identified and what the most
Appropriate method to control the problem is. 32 29
Recycle yard waste by compostinggrass dippings, leaves
and other organic materials. 28 25
Learn more about how to best care for the lawn,
specific plants, soil and wildlife at your home. 26 23
U se only well-adapted or native plants in your landscaping
and remove poorly adapted, exotic or invasive plants. 25 23
None of the above
Don't Know
Base: Have Yard Or Garden
Page 38
-------
AVIAN ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS PROJECT
To assess the ultimate outcome of its
regulatory decisions, EPA needs indicators
for monitoring the health of the environ-
ment.
In 2003, OPP initiated aproject to
develop environmental indicators focusing
on birds. Birds are an important compo-
nent of the terrestrial ecosystem and are
highly valued by the public. However, birds
are especially sensitive to toxic pesticides.
This project makes use of abundant data
already collected on bird populations
throughout the country.
The current measure used in Govern-
ment Performance and Results reports is,
"avian mortality incidents as a result of
pesticide poisoning."
It is believed that less than 10% of
incidents are reported. Reports are voluntary,
and compliance varies by state. The remains
of dead birds quickly disappear when they
are consumed by scavengers.
Birds are monitored in different
regions or according to habitat types. A
group of birds that has been receiving little
focus in the U.S. has been farmland birds.
These birds are not associated taxonomically
or by feeding traits. They are merely
associated with amajor land use, namely
agriculture.
Farmland birds can be attracted to the
open nature of agricultural fields and
pastures; to food resources, whether
rodents, insects, or the crops themselves; or
FUNDING AND RESOURCES
In addition to its voluntary partnership
programs, EPA provides direct fundingto
organizations that support its goals of
promoting IPM and reducing the risk of
pesticides. These organizations identify
individual projects and activities that will have
the greatest impact then provide financial and
staff support.
EPA works closely with these groups to
identify risk reduction goals, successful
approaches, available matching funds, and
methods to measure success.
The Environmental Stewardship Branch
oversees the distribution of environmental
stew ardship funds provided by the EPA to
the groups highlighted in Chart 5. The
organizations and the individual projects they
funded are further described in this chapter.
to nesting and roosting habitats available
in orchards and tree farms.
Because farmland birds inhabit a
highly managed landscape covering
approximately 377 million acres of non-
federal lands that are used to grow crops
and 120 million acres of managed to
produce forage for livestock, evaluatinghow
changes in the management practices on
agricultural lands is beneficial or detrimental
to bird populations is an important step
toward determining how to best manage
lands to both agricultural commodities as
well as wildlife.
How THE DATA ARE BEING
ANALYZED
The focal area for the development of
an avian indicator for agricultural lands is the
Great Lakes region (EPA Region V) and
Iowa. This constitutes the major corn
growing region of the Midwest.
For this region, there are adequate
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes associ-
ated with row crops to evaluate whether
population trends for farmland birds
change through time and can be attributed
to changes in agricultural practices, such as
the introduction of genetically modified
crops or changes in pesticide use patterns. It
is possible to categorize or rank BBS routes
according to the amount of agricultural
lands within 1/4 mi (400 m). Then is it
possible to either compare the population
trends across classes of BBS routes
categorized according to agricultural
lands.
The current indicator is based on the
amount of row crops adjacent to BBS
routes and has been broken into classes
of < 25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, and > 75%.
Two primary types of questions can be
answered. The first is whether the number
of birds differs according to the row crop
category. The second is whether the
population trend changes following a
change in policy or agricultural practice.
For either question, individual species
or groups of species can be considered.
When individual species are considered, all
species that occur along BBS routes could be
included, or species can be selected according
to certain criteria such as feeding guild,
nestinghabitat, or migratory status.
Species could be considered as groups
accordingto these same criteria. For
example, all insectivores that nest in shrubs
or hedgerows could be analyzed as a group
and a combined trend for all species
evaluated.
A final report on the development of a
roadmap for avian indicators on agricultural
lands is planned for completion in December
2004. The eventual goal is to understand the
quantitative relationships from product
toxicity and exposures, incident reporting
from actual use, and impact on avian
populations. The impact of EPA program
decisions will be better understood.
ASSKTANCEAG
Chart 5. Allocation of 2004 Funds
($3,367,600 tcttl)
Center for Agricultural
Partnerships
1%
PESP Regional
Initiative Grants
(STAG)
14%
American Farmland
Trust
17%
Strategic Agricultural
Initiative
48%
IR4/EPA Biopeslieide
Demonstrations
2%
Economic
Development
Administration of
Hawaii
7%
National Foundation
foi IPM Education
11%
Page 39
-------
NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR IPM EDUCATION
itio
The National Foundation for IPM
Education (NFIPME) was founded in 1992
as anot-for profit, public foundation to
increase the adoption of IPM through
education, information, and research. The
foundation designs and conducts educa-
tional programs for
interdisciplinary training
on IPM, increases visibility
and acceptance of IPM by
disseminatingin forma-
tion, facilitates the transfer
of IPM technologies to
professionals and the
general public, and
supports demonstration
research in pest management in agriculture,
structures, and landscapes. NFIPME
specializes in projects that bring together
diverse interests and perspectives to engage
in constructive dialogue. All of these
projects are directed toward the widespread
adoption of IPM and reducing pesticide
risks.
Early in its relationship with EPA,
NFIPME focused on sponsoringjoint
meetings on IPM adoption. Its staff
conducted workshops with growers to
identify barriers to IPM adoption for most
of the major agricultural crops. In addition,
they held IPM workshops in several states
to improve the media's understanding of
IPM practices. With the formation of BPPD
and the creation of PESP in 1994, the
objectives of the partnership shifted. The
Foundation focused more on furthering
IPM adoption and pesticide risk reduction
by offering competitive grants and jointly
sponsoring meetings with PESP members
to promote information sharing and
technology transfer.
In addition to competitive grants
projects, NFIPMEis involved in replicating
and expanding successful projects in other
regions. Since 1995,NFIPMEfunded
nearly 70 projects. During2004, the final
year of a five-year cooperative agreement,
EPA provided financial support to
NFIPME in the awarding of nine grants
through an open, competitive process. The
proposals and final reports for these
projects are available on NFIPME's Website
-www.pesp.org
Page 40
Tm/r
/ Foundation
or
IPM Education
PROJECTS COMPLETED IN 2004
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay -
FormingPartnerships with Nurseries
and Other Retailers Selling Landscaping
Products and Developing Relationships
with Master Gardeners
and Local Experts to
Serve as Educators for
Homeowners and
Businesses Who Wish to
Implement IPM. A
broad-based community
effort to increase
awareness and use of
IPM by the gen era! public
in one region of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Primary
elements are to: partner with retailers
sellinglandscapingproducts to stock
IPM related products and ensure
employees are trained in IPM; and
develop relationships with Master
Gardeners and others to consult with
and educate homeowners and businesses
on IPM practices.
Agren, Inc. developed a risk management
tool that replaces the need for a farmer to
utilize soil applied insecticides to manage
the risk of corn rootworm infestation in
continuous corn. A Service Performance
Guarantee w as provided to encourage
growers with below-threshold levels of
corn root worm beetles no to treat their
fields. Agren will further evaluate if this
guarantee can be offered as a cost
competitive solution to reduce the
unnecessary use of soil applied
insecticides.
Central Coast VineyardTeam (CCVT)
promoted sustainable practices through
its Positive Points System, aprotocol for
assessing the extent of integrated
vineyard farmingpractices. CCVT
conducted 12 grower-to-grower
educational meetings reaching 540 people
and significant acreage. CCVT
disseminated Positive Points System
practices and grower experience through
newsletters, a website, presentations,
educational booths, and industry articles.
C C VT helped 82 growers complete their
Positive Points System evaluation for the
2003 season. Pesticide use analyses on
several demonstration blocks showed
total use decreased from 2002 to 2003.
Michigan Asparagus Research, Inc. /
Michigan State University -
Promoting Pest Forecasting and
Scouting as Standard Management Tools
in MI Asparagus. Utilize the Tom-Cast
disease forecasting system to predict
foliar blights on 60% of MI asparagus
acreage. 2001 pilot resulted in 30% of
asparagus acreage using the system and
eliminating one fungicide application (a
reduction of 9,000 Ibs of pesticide).
Intend to double the acreage managed
with Tom-Cast through training
programs and demonstration sites on
commercial farms that highlight scouting
and disease forecasting.
Protected Harvest - Outreach to Food
Industry Professionals & Consumers as
an Integral Step in Overcoming Producer
Resistance in the Adoption of IPM.
Protected Harvest certifies farms that
meet measurable biointensive IPM
production standards. Project developed
and distributed multiple tools for
communicating audience-specific reduced
risk pest management information to
farm-based sales people, food industry
professionals (retailers, brokers,
distributors), and consumers.
Rainforest Alliance - IPM Education in
the Tropics: Dissemination of Best
Practices. Rainforest Alliance
incorporated IPM techniques into
comprehensive guidelines for the
sustainable production of cacao, citrus,
flowers and ferns; and created full IPM
manuals for coffee and bananas. This
project disseminated the IPM guidelines
and manuals to small farmers
throughout the tropics via training
workshops and the web. IPM guidelines
and manuals were also shared
throughout the Sustainable Agriculture
Network in Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador,
Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala,
Mexico, Belize and El Salvador.
South Central Idaho Biological Control
Steering Committee: Elaine County
Idaho Biological Knapweed Control
Project. Expanded the Camas Biological
-------
Control Project model to create an
extensive biological weed control
program in Elaine County and south-
central Idaho. Established a weed
biocontrol program in south-central
Idaho by releasing biological control
insects and monitoring the success of
these releases using high school students
as awork force.
Southwest Technical Resource Center
for IPM in Schools and Child Care
Facilities conducted 24 on-site school
audits and provided classroom training
for 478 school employees and pest
control professionals. Phone assistance
was provided to more than 1,000 school
staff and stakeholders on pest
management topics. Interactive
assistance on school IPM was provided
to approximately halfofthe 1,039
school districts in Texas. Curricula for
training school IPM coordinators were
improved and expanded in 2004.
Awards program for excellence in IPM
were established to promote model
school districts.
Town of Amesbury, Massachusettsis
implementing IPM on its athletic fields,
parks and cemeteries with a focus water
supply protection and compliance with
the 2000 Massachusetts Children and
Families Protection Act. IPM
implementation was expanded from 102
acres school-managed property to include
520 acres of public works and private
landscape for a total of over 720 acres.
In addition, 16,500 citizens were
educated on the environmental concerns
and advantages of home and farm
pesticide reduction and better land
management techniques.
Urban/Ag Ecology created the Pesticide
Hazard and Exposure Reduction Zones
in the Landscape (PH AER) which
provides a framework for setting
measurable risk-reduction goals. The
system provides clear measures of
compliance combined with management
flexibility and allows policymakers,
advocates, and mangers to clearly set and
understand risk-reduction objectives, as
well as to ascertain if these objectives
have been met. PH AER is designed to
allow universal implementation for any
landscape grounds management
setting, regardless of size or region.
PROJECTS FUNDED IN 2004
Bay Area Stormwater Management
Agencies Association - Our Water Our
World: Statewide Expansion and
Evaluation
Cornell University -A Manual and
Extension Program on Weed Ecology
and Ecological Weed Management
Massey Services-EliminatingIndoor Use
of Pesticides in the Florida Public School
Classrooms
Michigan State University -Delivery of
Multi-faceted IPM Training to Reduce
Pesticide Risk in Vineyards
Michigan State University -Reducing
Worker Exposure to Pesticides by
Implementing IPM Practices in
Blueberry Production
Safer Pest Control Project - Statewide
Partnership In Implementing IPM in
Illinois Child Day care Facilities
Texas Agricultural Extension Service &
Southwest Technical Resource Center -A
Model IPM program for Hospitals
University of Florida-Landscape
Maintenance IPM Trainingto Promote
Reduced-Risk Pest Management
Practices
University ofVermont-Greenhouse
IPM: Spreadingthe Word to Growers
ONGOING PROJECTS FUNDED
PRIOR TO 2004
Indiana University School of Public and
Environmental Affairs - School IPM
Program (Monroe Co., IN Implementa-
tion Model) Evaluation and Program
Improvement as
a Tool for the
Future N ational :
f
Implementation . -^\
of IPM in
Schools
International
Urban IPM
Association -
Establish
Operations for
the International
Urban IPM
Association
Monroe Co. IPM
Model Imple- jv"-:
mentation Team
- Implementa-
tion of IPM in Public Schools in
Ohio - Developing a successful model
for state-wide adoption by schools,
Cooperative Extension, state lead
agencies, and the pest management
industry
Urban/AgEcology Consulting
Services & Community Environmen-
tal Council - Reduced Risk Zone
Management Model for School and
Park Landscape Managers
The cooperative agreement between
NFIPME and EPA has been integral to
the success of PESP and ESB's efforts to
reduce pesticide risk. Because of a
shared commitment to IPM implementa-
tion and pesticide risk reduction, our
joint efforts help us accomplish much
more than either organization could
possibly achieve on its own.
The grants aw arded by N FIPME
provide direct assistance to pesticide user
groups and organizations that influence
pesticide use. These grants have sewn many
seeds that have proven beneficial to BPPD,
OPP, and N FIPME's mutual objective of
pesticide risk reduction.
Model programs, initially funded by
NFIPME, have proven to be adaptable and
expandable to many areas ofthe U.S. The
IPM in schools and retailer efforts provide,
perhaps, the best examples. The Monroe
County IPM in Schools model is being
adopted by school districts in numerous
states.
Bay Area Stormwater Management
Agencies Association' t,QurWaterQurWorld
model of homeowner and retailer education
on alternatives to conventional lawn care
insecticides is now being applied in the
Chesapeake Bay region.
Page 41
-------
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
provides funding to American Farmland
Trust (AFT) to award grants to improve
American agriculture. AFT also works
with EPA to develop tools to increase
the effectiveness of IPM implementation
and track the environmental impacts of
IPM.
AFT works with potential grantees
to help them set performance targets for
increased IPM adoption and pesticide
use/risk reduction that are appropriate
for their commodity and region. To
track changes in pesticide exposure,
AFT is helping several grantees analyze
their pesticide field data in theoretical
models to predict the potential impact
and exposure risks of biointensive IPM.
AFT is also helping to increase the use
of biological pesticides, expand IPM to
include nutrient management and
improvements in soil quality, link the
IPM activities of all federal agencies
and find additional resources to
implement IPM.
2004 ACTIVITIES
In 2004, AFT continued to work
with EPA to increase IPM implementa-
tion and track environmental impact by:
Setting performance measures for
IPM implementation. AFT worked
with EPA Strategic Agricultural Initiative
specialists develop a digital toolbox that
they and prospective grantees can use to
setperformancemeasures and quantify
the benefits of grants.
Tracking changes in pesticide
exposure. AFT ran pesticide use data
collected from IPM projects through
theoretical models to determine the
potential impact and exposure risks of
biointensive IPM. Three current EPA-
funded projects (Michigan celery,
Californiawinegrapes and Protected
Harvest/Gerber) are using theoretical
models to measure reductions in
toxicity; growers in Wisconsin and
Florida also used models to monitor
reductions in impacts.
Increasing IPM Implementation.
AFT helped gran tees reach their
performance targets, identified opportu-
nities to link IPM activities of federal
Page 42
agencies, developed a website to
provide farmers and technical service
providers with links to resources to
implement IPM practices and other
conservation measures, and worked
with U SDA to implement more
rigorous performance measures for
IPM adoption.
Improving Experimental Use
PermitsProcessfor Plant Incorpo-
rated Protectants. At the request of
OPP's Biopesticides and Pollution
Division, AFT worked with EPA
national and regional staff to organize,
facilitate and record an interactive
workshop on EUPs with the stake-
holder community. The proceedings
are available online ativiviv .epa.gov/
pesticides/biopesticidesl new sipip-eup-
prelim -guid.htm
Far mJ and Trust
SAV. :,':; TILK L.APJU TILA-L- SuaTJi JN.1-; Us
GRANT PROJECTS UNDERWAY IN
2004
AFT helped growers implement
integrated pest management and reduce
pesticide risk by funding the following
projects identified through a competitive
process under a cooperative agreement
with EPA.
Beyond Risk Reduction / Designing a
Comprehensive Certification
Program for Gerber Food
Products. With funding provided
by AFT, Protected Harvest is
working with the Gerber Products
Company to develop a credible,
verifiable, sustainable farm program
for the growing and processing of
foods for infants and children (about
80% of the market). The goal of the
project is to produce certifications
standards for Gerbers' suppliers of
peas, snap beans, peaches and carrots.
To date, the project has accomplished
the following:
completed the final draft standards for
both snap beans and peas;
collaborated with Gerber staff on a
Gerber Company Plan that requires
Gerber perform remedial action to
mentor poorer growers towards
improvement; and
updated the Wisconsin eco-potato
toxicity model (created with AFT's
help) to account for different types of
exposure in assessingrisks ofpesticides
to human health, workers and
wildlife.
Leverage: On September 15,2004,
U SDA aw arded a C onservation
Innovation grant of $999,982 from
EQIP funds to Protected Harvest to
use a Gerber-inspired framework to
assist CA tree-fruit producers in
meeting air quality, water quality and
water conservation requirements in
an environmentally sound manner.
A Systems Approach to Implement
Area-Wide Metrics that
Demonstrate the Impacts of
Widespread IPM Adoption in All
Major California Wine Growing
Regions. This two-year project,
begun in 2003, provides funds to the
California Sustainable Wine Growing
Alliance to implement, evaluate, and
improve the Code of Sustainable
Wine Growing Practices (SWP).
SWP is a self-assessment workbook
that includes IPM, soil, water, crop,
ecosystem, and additional sustainable
approaches and practices with a built-
in system to measure performance.
To date the project has accomplished
the following:
completed 75 self-assessment work-
shops;
collected data from 568 growers assessing
more than 124,000 acres (22% of
statewide total) and from winery facilities
producingnearly 100 million cases of
wine (38% of statewide total);
increased environmental performance by
improvingecosy stem management that
enhance biodiversity and increase the
abundance ofnatural enemies; and
conducted statistical analyses to investi-
gate correlations between IPM and
related practices (soil, water, viticulture
and ecosystem management) and
environmental impacts are on going.
Leverage: On September 15,2004,
USDA awarded a Conservation
Innovation grant of $475,000 to the
project to help accelerate technology
-------
transfer as part of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
Functional Ecology: A Catalyst for
Change in Tree Fruit Integrated
Pest Management. Using a grant
form AFT, Michigan State
University's Center for Integrated
Plant Systems is developing
ecological indicators for Michigan's
IPM cherry orchards to help growers
access funds from EQIP and the
Conservation Security Program. This
is the first time ecological
measurements are being developed
for farmers to use to track progress in
the ecological health of their orchards
as a result of IPM adoption. So far, the
project has resulted in the following:
16 growers and consultants are helping
themselves and researchers link the
functional ecology ofnematodes, carbon
assimilation, mites and microlepidoptera
in their orchards to overall orchard
health.
researchers are currently testing these
indicators on six apple, six cherry and six
peach sites in key fruit grow ing regions
across the state. They are reporting
progress on mite indexing, soil and duff
microorganisms andnutrient analysis
and soil quality profiles.
Adoption of Improved Crop and Soil
Management Practices to Eliminate
Bare-Ground Fallow and Reduce
Reliance on Pesticides by Hawaiian
Farmers. Crop Care Hawaii, LLC
and the Hawaii Agricultural Research
Center are working with Pioneer Hi-
Bred to reduce soil
erosion and pesticide
and nutrient run-off
from agriculture in
Hawaii - a huge
environmental challenge
that is endangering
Hawaii's reef system.
Pioneer Hi-Bred has
significant acreage on
Oahu and Maui planted
to produce genetically
engineered seed corn.
The project has targeted
12 farmers on 2,000
acres, mostly on former
sugar cane plantation
properties. Current accomplishments
of the project include:
on-farm trials are now located at eight
sites representing 1,000 acres;
field demonstration plantings of
cover crops include sunn hemp, lana
vetch, oats, winter wheat and barley;
cooperators are testing two soil
amendments, Maui Liquid Compost
Factor (LSF) and Effective Microor-
ganisms; and
monitoring is being conducted on
fields for impacts on soil fertility,
runoff and nematode populations.
Leverage: The project cooperators
secured 100 Ibs of sunn hemp from
USDA NRCS, adapted to Hawaii
conditions and the USDA Plant
Materials Center on Molokai agreed
to grow out seed for distribution to
North Shore area growers. Waialua
High School students are helping with
research plot set-up, sampling and
outreach to growers.
IPM Practices to Reduce
Organophosphate and Carbamate
Pesticide Usage in Pineapple. With
funding provided by AFT, the
University of Hawaii, Plant and
Environmental Protection Sciences,
seeks to reduce pesticide use on
pineapple, the major agricultural
commodity in Hawaii, cultivated on
over 20,000 acres.
Pineapple is the major agricultural
commodity in Hawaii and relies
upon organophosphate and carbamate
insecticides and nematicides for
control of mealybug wilt and
postplant nematode control. This
project directly addresses the
challenges facing the pineapple
industry in its transition toward safer
pest management practices.
Performance targets for this project
include:
increase the use of an ant monitoring
and control system by commercial
fields to 40%; and
eliminate the postplant application of
organophosphate nematicides on 30%
of the pineapple treated each year.
Advancing IPM for Celery Growers
in Michigan, California and
Florida. Celery growers in
California, Michigan and Florida
have undertaken a collaborative
project to implement IPM as part of
USDA's RAMP grant program. The
project will result in the following:
Michigan growers will reduce their
use of B2 carcinogens
(chlorothalonil) by two sprays on 20
percent of Michigan celery acreage,
and test a weather monitoring system
for reducing these sprays even
further.
establishment of a task force to reach
out to 41 growers to track their
willingness over time to use reduced
risk fungicides and forecasting
systems as a result of the USDA
RAMP-fundedwork.
testing of three environmental
indicator models with data from 10
celery fields. The models being
tested are EYP (the Dutch Yardstick
model), SYNOPS_2 (German model)
and the Benbrook model.
field trials to evaluate
conventional (Bravo, Tilt)
and reduced risk (Amistar)
fungicides for controlling
late blight, early blight and
crater rot. Two of the trials
investigate disease predic-
tion systems and methods
to delay the initial fungi-
cide application.
Page 43
-------
BIOPESTICIDES DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Last year, EPA entered into an inter-
agency agreement with USDA's Interregional
Research Project M (IR4) to administer a
competitive grants program to fund field
demonstrations of biopesticides used
within IPM systems.
The goal of the Biopesticide Demon-
stration Project is to reduce the barriers to
increased adoption of biopesticides
nationally by funding field demonstrations
of effective biopesticides within integrated
pest management systems.
Barriers to the use of biopesticides
include concerns about efficacy, ease of
application, cost, limited availability, and lack
of resources for grower training. Many
biopesticide companies are small and lack
the resources and field presence that is
necessary for effective market penetration.
However, grower-to-grower training within
commodity organizations has proven to be
a potent tool for behavioral change.
With few exceptions, biopesticides are
not intended to function as stand-alone
products that can be substituted one-for-
one with conventional pesticides. Because
biopesticides are frequently species-specific in
their targets and operate via a non-toxic
mode of action, they are most effective
when used within integrated systems.
This project is increasing awareness of
effective options for integrating biologically-
based technologies into existing crop
products systems and is promoting the use
of novel combinations of biopesticides to
enhance product performance.
In 2004, 42 proposals were submitted
in response to a request for proposals. EPA
and IR4 developed a system for screening
and rating proposals based on efficacy,
design and risk reduction potential. A
review panel of six IR-4/EPA staff
awarded $102,000 in funding for nine
projects.
In initial reports, almost all of the
projects showed positive findings in
respect to efficacy. Following is a brief
summary of each project:
Maine Mycotrol/Blueberry Flea
Beetle
Mycotrol (Beauvaria), Imidan and
Entrust were similar in their control
of flea beetle larvae and all were
better than the control. About 83% of
larvae collected 1 or 12 days after
application of Mycotrol died. In the
field, Mycotrol combined with
Spinosad provided 100% control of
flea beetle.
NY Serenade /Apple Diseases
Spray programs including Serenade in
rotation with conventional products
performed equal to the grower
standard for the control of apple scab,
powdery mildew and fireblight.
Long Island Biopesticides Powdery
Mildew/ Pumpkin
The biopesticides Oxidate or Trilogy
rotated with Quintec provided greater
than about 90% season long control of
powdery mildew. Oxidate, Sporan,
Trilogy, Bugitol, Eco-Erase, andJMS
stylet oil alone were similar to Bravo
and Quintec early season, but were
not as good in later ratings.
Michigan Codling Moth / Apples
Trial was conducted on 800 acres.
Combinations ofpheromone and
codling moth granulosis virus were
used. Moth
captures in
orchards that
had previously
used
pheromones
were never
more than two
per trap and
rarely reached
one per trap in
the protected
areas. In areas
that never used
pheromones
before the
populations were greater and they
had greater than 20 per trap. Fruit
injury was 43% less in the area wide
project and never exceeded 1.5%.
Through posters displayed in local
farm supply center, at least an
additional 800 acres on adjacent farms
voluntarily chose mating disruption.
Mississippi Dollar Spot/
Bermudagrass
Zerotol alone or EcoGuard (B.
linchineformis) rotated with Daconil
Ultrex or TurfShield (T. hanganum}
rotated with Chipco 26019 had about
a 55% reduction in dollar spot while
Daconil reduced dollar spot reduced
52%. Chipco 26019 alone only had
15% dollar spot control.
Colorado Corn Earworm/Sweet Corn
Nuclear polyhedrus virus rotated
with Spinosad was as effective as a
pyrethroid (Warrior) program in
con trolling corn earworm. Spinosad
is expensive compared to the
pyrethroid or the virus. The most
likely adoption by growers is
expected to be a tank mix between the
pyrethroid and the NPV.
Arizona Sclerotinia/Lettuce
Has not yet been initiated. Will be
grown as a winter crop.
Wyoming Mycotrol/Grasshoppers
Pasture
Mycotrol (Beauvaria) decreased the
density of grasshoppers in pasture or
rangeland, but mortality in the
control plots made it difficult to
access. Carrier oil did not effect
treatments.
California Powdery Mildew/Grapes
Serenade in rotation with Pristine,
Procure, Flint or Quintec was as
effective as in controlling the
incidence and severity of powdery
mildew in grapes as rotations among
conventional products.
Based on its first year success, EPA and
IR4intend to continue funding this
project. A request for proposals has already
been issued for 2005 with proposals due in
December, 2004.
EPA is also developing a communica-
tion strategy to distribute the results of the
projects to growers and groups that could
benefit from such information.
Page 44
-------
REGIONAL PESTICIDE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM GRANTS
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), OPP and the
Regional Offices make grants to states and
all Federally recognized N ative American
Tribes. This program has been supported
by State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) funds since 1996.
In 2004, $507,000 was available for
grants for research, public education,
training, monitoring, demonstrations,
and studies that advance pesticide risk
reduction. These projects complemented
ongoing risk reduction efforts and PESP
activities in EPA's ten Regions.
Eligible applicants include the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, any territory or possession of the
United States, any agency or instrumentality
of a state including state universities, and all
federally recognized N ative American tribes.
Local governments, private universities,
private nonprofit entities, private busi-
nesses, and individuals are not eligible.
The organizations excluded from
apply ing directly are encouraged to work
with eligible applicants in developing
proposals that include them as participants
in the projects.
ESB coordinates the announcement of
these grants through the Federal Register.
However, each EPA regional office collects,
reviews, selects the proposals for funding,
and administers the specific projects in their
region.
Traditionally, each EPA region selects
one project for funding. Then, the top
unfunded projects from each regional office
are pooled, further reviewed, and funded
until the available funds are obligated.
The following regional projects
were underway in 2004:
REGION 1
The final report for the following
project was submitted:
Maine Department of Agriculture, Food,
and Rural Resources: Implementing
Integrated Pest Management in
Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont
Schools
Approximately 600 people
attending school IPM training
workshops in the three project states.
Of these, 32 were trained as trainers
to assist schools in IPM adoption
Based on questionnaire responses,
all participating schools have
implemented more IPM practices and
almost all have improved monitoring,
record-keeping, and decision-making.
An open house on IPM
implementation drew some 250
parents, pest management
professionals, school staff,
administrators, and EPA
representatives.
The followingprojects are ongoing:
University ofVermont:
Reducing Pesticide Risks in
Cold Climate Wine Grape
Production -An Emerging New
Crop in Northern New England
Maine Board of Pesticides
Control: YardScaping: Mini-
mizing Reliance on Pesticides
by Example Using Demonstra-
tion, Outreach and IPM
Training
University of Maine: Manage-
ment of the European Fire Ant
in Eastern Maine
University of Connecticut:
Reducing the Risks Associated
with Herbicides for Growing
Pumpkins in New England
University of Massachusetts:
Multilingual IPM Education
University of Rhode Island: Bacillus
thuringiensis japonensis strain Buibui
for control of scarab pests of
turfgr asses
University of Massachusetts: Inte-
grated Pest Management for Indoor
and Structural Pests of Schools in the
Northeast USA.
REGION 2
University of Puerto Rico Agricul-
tural Extension Service: Development
of a Landscape IPM Program in
Puerto Rico
University of Medicine & Dentistry
of New Jersey and Rutgers Univer-
sity Environmental and Occupational
Health Sciences Institute: Urban
Residential IPM Strategies
Research Foundation of State
University of New York, for and in
conjunction with, State University of
New York: Transferring Knowledge
of Shrub Ecology and Management to
Promote Integrated Vegetation
Management on Powerline Corri-
dors
University of Puerto Rico: Pesticide
Risk Reduction in Coffee: Analysis
of Survey Results and Training on
Pesticide Use Safety and Integrated
Pest Management (IPM).
REGION 3
Pennsylvania State University:
Collaborative IPM Education and
Outreach in Underserved Row
House Communities in Philadelphia
Virginia Tech: Integrated Pest
Management Training for Virginia
Schools
Penn State University: Development
of Outreach Education Materials and
Programming for Pesticide Use
Reduction and Safety Practices
Penn State University, Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture, &
Pennsylvania Department of Health:
(Continued on p. 46)
Page 45
-------
(Regional Grants - from p. 45)
IPM in Schools: Developing Local
and Interstate Partnerships and
Strategies for Implementation
REGION 4
North Carolina Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services:
Residential IPM Strategies in Rural
Native American Communities
Alabama Department of Agriculture
& Industries & Auburn University:
Strategic Implementation of IPM in
Schools Utilizing a Statewide
Coalition
North Carolina State University: Action
Thresholds and Residue Analysis for
Integrated Pest Management in North
Carolina Elementary Schools
University of Florida: Increasing
Adoption of Reduced Risk Practices in
the Production of Woody Ornamen-
tals
University of Georgia: Evaluation
and Incorporation of Low-Risk
Insecticides into Southeastern Peach
Pest Management
REGION 5
Purdue University: Pest Manage-
ment Provider Education Network to
Support IPM Adoption in Indiana
Child Care Settings
University ofWisconsin-Madison:
Promoting the Use of Advanced IPM in
Wisconsin Apple and Cherry
Orchards
Michigan State University: Michigan
Field Crop Ecological Weed
Management: A Decision Support
System
University of Wisconsin-Madison:
Reducing Pesticide Use and Risk in
Urban Landscapes
Michigan State University Extension:
An Educational Outreach Extension
Program to Train Fruit IPM Scouts;
A Pilot Program Targeting Migrant
Workers and Hispanic/Latino
Blueberry Growers in Michigan
University ofWisconsin: Interactive
Tutorial: Pesticides and Pest Manage-
ment at Home and in School
REGION 6
Southwest Technical Resource
Center, Texas Cooperative Exten-
sion, Measuring the Success of School
IPM in Texas
Oklahoma State University: Documen-
tation of Pest Management Practices and
Implementation of IPM In Oklahoma
Public Schools
Oklahoma State University: Pesticide
Risk Reduction Utilizingthe PEET
Multi-Objective Decision-Support
System
Texas Cooperative Extension: South-
west Technical Resource Center For IPM
in Schools and Child Care Facilities;
Interactive IPM Assistance Program
for Schools in Texas, New Mexico
and Oklahoma
Texas A&M University: Reducing
Chemical Insecticide Inputs and
Costs by Using Biologically-based
Insecticides Against Diamondback
Moth and Cabbage Looper on Cole
Crops in Texas
Oklahoma State University: Devel-
opment of Model Fumigation
Management Plan Utilizing Closed
Loop Fumigation
Oklahoma State University: Pest
Management In and Around Urban
Buildings
REGION 7
Missouri Department of Agriculture:
Implementing Integrated Pest Manage-
ment Practices in Missouri Schools
lowaDepartmentofAgricultureand
Land Stewardship: Implementing IPM
in Midwestern States Schools
University ofNebraska: Learning
Modules & In-Service Training for IPM
in K-12 Schools in Nebraska
Thomas Jefferson Agricultural
Institute: An Outreach IPM, Re-
duced-Risk Pesticide and Biological
Control Program for Greenhouse
and Nursery Growers in Missouri
University ofNebraska: Using Inert
Dusts to Detect, Assess and Control
VarroaMitesinHoney BeeColonies
REGION 8
Colorado State University Coopera-
tive Extension: Reducing Pesticide
Use by Floriculture Professionals in
the Inter-Mountain Western Region
of the United States through Educa-
tion
Montana State University: Evaluating
Reduced Risk Pesticides for Enhanced
Page 46
-------
Biological Activity
North Dakota State University:
Conservation of pollinators as a yield
management strategy in sunflower
University of Colorado: Developing
Sustainable Management Procedures
for Widespread Noxious Weeds on
Public Lands in the Colorado Front
Range
Mountain Resource Center: High-
way 285 Living Roadsides Project
Montana State University: Auto-
mated Aeration Strategies to Manage
Insects in Stored Wheat on Montana
Farms; Evaluation of Efficacy and
Promoting Public Awareness
REGION 9
The final report for the following
project was submitted in 2004:
Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape
Commission: Grower Self-
Assessment Program
Growers were introduced to the
Lodi Winegroiver'sWorkbookvn. a
workshop setting hosted by
neighboring growers. The project
manager and technical coordinator
instructed growers on how to fill out
the workbook for one of their
vineyards.
During 38 workshops for growers
who had never attended a workshop,
295 growers who farm 63,000 acres in
LWWC (70% of the acreage)
completed the workbook. Fourteen
second round workshops for growers
wishing to fill out the workbook
again were attended by 60 growers
who farm 40,000 acres. In the future,
one workshop a month will be held
with each devoted to a different
chapter in the workbook
The following projects
are ongoing:
Lodi-Woodbridge
Winegrape Commission:
Developing an In-field
Inspection Program and
Chain of Custody
Procedures for LWWC
Sustainable Winegrape
Productions Certification
Program
University of Califor-
nia-Davis: Improved Management of
the Egyptian Alfalfa Weevil in
California to Protect Environmental
Quality
California Department of Pesticide
Regulation: Almond Pest Manage-
ment: Alternatives to Dormant
Organophosphate and Pyrethroid
Sprays
Hawaii Department of Agriculture:
Pest Management and Pesticide
Training for At-Risk Korean Farmers
in Hawaii
Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape
Commission: Grower Self-Assess-
ment Program
REGION 10
Washington State University:
Integrated Pest Management for the
Raspberry Beetle, Byturus unicolor
(Say), Using Life Stage Prediction and
Cultural Management in Red
Raspberry Production
Oregon State University: Long Live
"MagNet": Positive Points for IPM
Tool Use
Washington State University: Good
Bug, Bad Bug A Novel Approach to
IPM of Solanceous Weeds
Oregon State University: "MAG-
NET"-A Collaboration to Reduce
Chlorpyrifos Dependence and
Promote IPM Adoption in Root
Crop Production
Washington State University-Prosser:
Green Peach Aphid Management in
Potatoes
Oregon Wine Advisory Board &
Oregon Department of Agriculture:
Promotion of Integrated Production
of Winegrapes -The LIVE Certifica-
tion Program for Oregon Vineyards
The projects supported through this
program are extremely diverse, ranging
from IPM implementation in specific
crops to IPM implementation in schools.
The diversity of projects signifies the
broad interest in pesticide risk reduction
that exists in each EPA Region. These
projects are important for many reasons,
including fostering cooperation between
the Regional Offices and OPP and, most
importantly, reducing pesticide risk at
the local level.
Page 47
-------
C ENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL PARTNERSHIPS
In the summer of 2003, the Center
for Agricultural Partnerships (CAP)
initiated a project to develop, use,
validate, and document a process for
identify ing key opportunities and
workingwith members to carry out
projects that result in measurable
reductions of pesticide risks. Work on
the project continued in 2004 and
following is an update on the project.
The project was designed to follow a
work plan developed by CAP then
validated with private and public sector
project participants. As with all CAP
projects, the work plan is a key part of
project implementation.
Developing a work plan in conjunc-
tion with project partners ensured that
the tasks and outcomes were clearly
understood and shared by all partici-
pants, timelines were realistic, expecta-
tions articulated, and resources ad-
equately allocated. As the project
proceeded, the work plan also provided
a yardstick for gauging progress and
ensuring that all of the important
milestones are met.
The work plan outlined five steps
for the project:
1. identify key opportunities/problems;
2. determine key partners with whom
to work in each sector;
3. design the project;
4. guide project efforts; and
5. evaluate and document process and
project efforts.
Risk reduction efforts for the period
ranged from broad educational programs
(presentations at an international
symposium on vegetation management
on rights of way) and demonstrations
(GIS and IPM on public and private golf
courses) to the initiation of IPM certifi-
cation (reduced risk
pesticides in schools)
and the field imple-
mentation of reduced
risk practices in
agriculture (phero-
mone mediated
mating disruption in
Georgia peach
production).
Although the
focus of these projects
ranged from increas-
Page 48
ing awareness to actual implementation
of new practices, they are all developed
using the same process for identifying
the most promising opportunities and
organizing the most effective partner-
ships.
Center for
1 Agricultural
Partnerships
As a result, partners gained valuable
experience in the organization and
management of risk reduction efforts
that will produce substantive results and
that can be applied to other critical
situations.
In the spring and summer of 2004,
the program was evaluated through a
combination of individual interviews
and a roundtable discussion. Overall the
project was judged to have been valuable
in focusing attention on risk reduction
opportunities in a focused and
systematic way.
Partners developed a greater
ability to assess the critical compo-
nents of a successful IPM project and
gained a much better understanding of
where grower groups are in the risk
reduction and sustainable agricultural
continuum and what their real world
needs are.
A number of lessons were learned in
the process of implementing the project
that can be used to inform subsequent
efforts.
Participants pointed out that
following all of the steps in selecting an
opportunity helps avoid surprises later
in the process. At the same time, the
process can be labor intensive and needs
to be started earlier in the
year.
Developing w o rk
plans helps partners
clarify the tasks they need
to accomplish and
provides a basis for
writinggrant proposals.
In developing the work
plans, it was necessary to
focus the project on the
needs of the next adopters
of the new practice or
technology.
The people most versed and
enthusiastic about the innovation
typically have not thought about the
innovation from the perspective of
someone who has not yet used the
technology. However, it is essential that
they do so if they want to facilitate its
further adoption. In addition, the process
of developing work plans is best done in
face-to-face sessions with all of the project
participants.
Finally, participants would benefit
significantly from having a set of SOPs for
participating in the project at the beginning
of the effort to which they could have
referred throughout the project.
In response to the evaluation, efforts
have since focused on the development and
use of a guidance document, A Guide to
Facilitating the Basic Steps in the Dev elopm entof
Partn ership Effortsfo r Reducing Pesticide Risks.
As recommended in the evaluation, the
manual was developed in late summer
and introduced in early September.
The process for 2004-2005 will be to
focus on broadening the number of
participants, using a structured process for
understanding and identifying opportuni-
ties.
While the intention is to facilitate the
initiation of risk reduction efforts on the
ground, there is an increased emphasis on
creatingbetter workingrelationships that
result in a broader foundation for risk
reduction efforts.
The steps in the work plan for 2004-
2005 are:
1. developing and providing materials
that support the facilitation effort;
2. conducting facilitation efforts with
private and public sector partners;
and
3. communicating with key audiences
about the efforts and their results.
Through this work the capacity for
identifying and organizing effective risk
reduction efforts in the public and private
sectors will be increased.
-------
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE OF HAWAII
Through a Congressional appropria-
tion known as a set-aside, EPA provides
grant monies to the Economic Develop-
ment Alliance of Hawaii (EDAH) to fund
demonstration projects which accelerate the
commercialization ofbiotechnology and,
thereby, will reduce pesticide use in tropical
agricultural production.
In April 2004, EDAH issued the
latest request for proposals for new
demonstration projects that focus on the
commercialization of biotechnologies to
reduce pesticide use in Hawaii.
Following are projects funded by
EDAH.
ONGOING ACTIVITIES
Maui Liquid Compost Factor (LCF) as
Nematicide Replacement and Growth
Enhancer -Bryan Hiromoto
LC F is created with mushrooms
grownusingthewaste-streams of
pineapple juices and sugarcane wash.
Growers ofpineapple, foliage, cut
flowers, and vegetables are testing LCF
formulations. LC F eliminates clearing
and replanting costs, thereby
affording pineapple growers
significant production cost savings
and improving profitability.
Additional findings indicate that LCF
strengthens the plants receiving the
applications and increases resistance
to nematodes.
Several commercial companies are
evaluating the use ofMaui LCF as a
fertilizer additive. Testingon other crops
is underway across the U.S.
2004 FUNDED PROJECTS
Biocontrol of Nematodes on Pineapple
Pineapple Growers Association of
Hawaii / Maui Pineapple Company
The Hawaii pineapple industry has
reduced production acreage over the last
decade due to increased competition
from countries with lower production
costs. However, U.S. production costs
could be lowered if dependence on high
priced nematicides could be reduced.
This would also contribute to increased
environmental stability.
LCF and MeloCon trials will be
conducted in commercial pineapple
fields and yield parameters recorded.
Results of the trials will provide the
pineapple industry with information
on how to incorporate these products
into the pineapple cropping system.
This project will focus on pineapple
plantations on Oahu and Maui. The
trials will be established on the Dole
Food Company plantation in Wahiawa
and at Maui Pineapple Company's
H aliim aile plan tation.
Biocontrol of Anthurium Decline
C aused by Radophclus similis
Hawaiian Anthurium Industry
Association
Anthurium decline, caused by
Radopholussimilis,is awidespread and
serious disease in Hawaii. Anthurium
will be treated with LC F, a bionutrient
product that improves plant growth.
Improved growth assists plants in
recovery from diseases and may increase
initial tolerance to pathogen infection.
Yields from anthurium plants are
reduced by 50% and productive plant life
reduced from 25% by infestations of the
burrowingnematode. The shortened
production life means increased
replanting costs, one of the most costly
aspects of anthurium production. LCF
is expected to improve plant growth and
aid plants in recovery from disease
infection.
Commercialization of Neem Oil for
Pest Control in Sweet Potato
Production
Don Mahi
This trial will investigate the use of
neem oil and neem cake derived from
neem tree seeds to control nematodes
and wireworm in sweet potato crops.
The focus crop for this study will be the
Okinawan sweet potato.
Neem oil, which is non-toxic to
humans, could reduce/eliminate the use
of other pesticides. In addition to an
increasing consciousness among
consumers about the risks ofpesticides
and the increasing reluctance of farmers
to apply them, agrowingbase ofneem
trees, which grow in few other places in
the U.S., presents the possibility that
neem product production can emerge as
a vital part of Hawaiian agriculture.
Neem production is complicated
due to the requirement for EPA
registration of agricultural products
containing azadirachtin. Kauai has the
only certified neem orchard in the
U.S. able to produce neem oil.
Development, Demonstration, and
Commercialization of Modern and
Environmentally Friendly Practices
in Hawaiian Taro Farming,
including the Use of Pesticide-
Reducing and Related
Biotechnologies
HPC Foods & Grove Farm Company
This project is designed to (a) show
and train Hawaiian taro farmers how to
make their farms environmentally
friendly and sustainable and more
productive; (b) rejuvenate the Hawaiian
taro industry by helpingit evolve away
from antiquated farmingpractices; (c)
reverse the declining trend in Hawaiian
taro production/output and (d) prepare
the state to supply the huge potential
demand for this crop in other product
applications/uses or market niches.
A 10-acre model farm will be created
on the island of Kauai to utilize
compost fortified with probiotics as the
"pesticide". The use of compost in
wetland taro farming serves a dual
beneficial function as both a natural
pesticide and nutrient/ fertilizer
supplement even more so as a key
player in the soil management strategy.
About 500 acres have been dedicated
by Grove Farm for Hawaiian taro
farming and other agriculture
projects.
-------
COMMUNICATIONS
The single greatest barrier to the
implementation of IPM, sustainable
agriculture, and safer pest control is the
lack of communication. ESB's stake-
holders often are not immediately aware
of changing regulatory activities that
impact their pest management efforts.
Furthermore, small grower and research
groups do not know to whom to turn to
within EPA to report IPM problems, find
out what work is in progress to address a
problem, or get strategic help and training
to effectively implement new IPM practices.
Finally, when successes are realized by
individual groups, the results are not
communicated to the full sector as
rapidly as they could be.
In 2003, ESB made significant progress
in fosteringinformation exchange to its
PESP members and liaisons. Program staff
are holding more meetings with members,
developing tools to generate greater
feedback from members, and disseminating
sector-based information through electronic
and printed means.
In 2004, ESB will expand its commu-
nications outreach program. It will
coordinate and report research and
technology demonstration activities to
ensure that members are informed in
advance of regulatory, research, and
education activities that might help or
affect them. PESP will utilize liaisons
and program staff to further develop and
maintain interactive relationships with and
between members, better educate the
grower community, and provide mecha-
nisms for two-way information ex-
change.
ESB C COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS
PESP WEBSITE
The most prominent component of
PESP's communications efforts is the PESP
Website (iviviv.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP).
Located in the Grants and Partnerships
portion of the revised OPP Website, the
PESP site provides an array of information
geared toward members, potential members,
liaisons, and the general public with an
interest in pollution prevention.
The site includes an overview and
history of PESP, membership lists, contact
information for members and their liaisons,
all issues of the PESP Update, member
strategies, and grants information. It is
intended to be a comprehensive source of
information on the program and our
participants.
The site received an average of 27,160
hits per month during 2004. The average visit
to the site lasted about 17 minutes. Chart 6
details the hits and visit lengths by month
(through October) for 2004.
Chart 6.2004 EPA PESP WttMit* Statittiet
i t
The National Foundation for IPM
Education maintains the site iviviv .pesp.org.
This site was established by NFIPME as part
of a cooperative agreement it had with EPA
before EPA's PESP site was created. The
site provides information on PESP-related
grants awarded by NFIPME and directs
visitors to EPA's PESP site for program-
matic information.
PESP UPDATE
The PESP Update is a newsletter on
PESP issues and activities mailed to 1,300
addressees, including PESP members, EPA
Headquarters and Regional staff, USDA and
FDA, environmental organizations,
commodity groups, and interested individu-
als. All issues of the Update are available
through the PESP Website at iviviv.epa.gov/
oppbppdl/PESP/publications.htm. Itisissued
two to four times each year.
Last year, the Update reports on newly
registered biopesticides, articles on ESB
programs including the Lawns and the
Environment Initiative and Biopesti-
cide Demonstration Project, informa-
tion on funding opportunities, and
* new s about exciting initiatives being
2} undertaken by PESP members.
a> PESP NEWS EXCHANGE
= "Vh&PESPNewsExchangeK a
E specialty news and alert service
focused on the advancement and
- exchange of information related to
PESP issues and activities. It is
produced by EPA and disseminated
via e-mail to PESP members and other
stakeholders. News and alerts are tailored to
the specific needs and requests of members.
The main goals of the Exchange are:
provide timely news and information
relevant to the advancement of
environmental stewardship practices;
keep the PESP community informed of
OPP news and activities;
help members gain easy access to
PESP, EPA, and USDA resources;
facilitate the exchange ofinformation.
The flagship features of the Exchange are
the sector, EPA, and funding opportunities
sections. Other regular features include
research activities and updates, regulatory,
and legislative updates, and a calendar of
environmentally sustainable events taking
place around the nation. Important news
stories, education and training announce-
ments, as well as stories from the field are
also regular features.
NATIONAL SCHOOLS UPDATE
At the request of many school officials,
ESB began publishing an electronic National
Schools Update in 2003. Each edition features
articles by experts in the field of school IPM,
announcements, and news items provided by
EPA regional office contacts.
The quarterly Schools Update is provided
in Adobe PDF format to over 500 state IPM
coordinators, school officials, parents,
environmental organizations, EPA Schools
Workgroup, EPA Tools for Schools
Program, and EPA's Office of Children's
Health Protection.
Page 50
-------
COLLABORATION
Collaboration and coordination for
most of the pesticide environmental
stewardship programs within OPP,
EPA, and externally, is the responsibility
of the Environmental Stewardship
Branch. Thus, ESB staff serve on a wide
variety of steering committees, commis-
sions, and projects that are related to, or
share the goal of environmental steward-
ship and pesticide risk reduction.
Through these other activities and
programs, ESB is learning from the success
of others and sharing lessons learned and
experience gained from its own programs.
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
Last year, ESB staffworked closely
with their colleagues in OPP on the
following activities:
provided regular updates ofbranch
activities in the OPP Weekly (electronic
newsletter);
issued environmental stewardship
electronicinformation bulletins to EPA
liaisons and other interested OPP staff;
met with OPP's Special Review &
Reregistration Division to discuss
improvinginformation sharing on
OPP's reregistration activities with SAI
and PESP members.
participated with the regions in the Week
in ResidentTrainingandMutual'Account-
ability Assessm en z'program s;
served on OPP's Pesticides in Schools
Workgroup;
attended Committee to Advise on
Reassessment and Transition
(CARAT), Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee (PPDC), State
FIFRA Issues Research and Evalua-
tion Group (SFIREG), and other
meetings on reduced-risk and
stewardship programs.
EPA
There are several EPA voluntary
and regulatory programs and initiatives
that occur outside of OPP that affect
OPP's environmental stewardship
programs. ESB staff attended meetings,
reviewed documents, and distributed
materials to participants of these other
programs.
Last year, ESB staff collaborated
with the following:
Partnership Programs Coordinating
Committee;
O ffice of Children's Health Protection
initiatives on children and the aging;
Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE);
Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic
Substances / Office of Air & Radiation
Partnership Healthy Schools
Workgroup;
Whole Schools
Office of Water's Water Efficiency
Program;
OfficeofSolidWasteGreenscapes
Program.
EXTERNAL PROGRAMS
Other federal agencies and non-
governmental organizations have programs
and initiatives that impact OPP's environ-
mental stewardship programs. ESB staff
attend meetings, review documents, and
distribute materials to participants of these
other programs. Last year, ESB staff
collaborated with the following:
Federal IPM Steering Committee
IPM Symposium 2006 Steeting Com-
mittee
President's Task Force on Environmental
Health and Safety Risks to Children
U SDA Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service
Regional IPM Centers
U SDA Sustainable Agriculture
Network Program
5th National
1PM Symposium
Delivering on a Promise
April 4-6. 2006. SL Louts
PESP EVALUATION
In 2004, the Office of Pesticide
Programs and the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer completed an evaluation of
PESP. The purpose of the evaluation was
to determine which program elements have
made PESP successful and which elements
need improvement or redesign.
The evaluation had the following
objectives:
assess the effectiveness of PESP's
member strategy development process;
evaluate the capacity of EPA liaisons;
determine the criteria for successful
pesticide risk reduction strategies;
apply lessons learned including what
actions EPA can take to ensure that
PESP results in measurable risk
reduction on the national level.
The contractor assisting with this
evaluation, Industrial Economics, con-
ducted interviews with 36 PESP participants
and stakeholders and analyzed member
strategies and other materials. Interviews
of stakeholders covered a wide range of
topics and provided an excellent insight into
how the program is performing.
Discussions with members focused on
their motivation for joining PESP and the
logistics and challenges ofparticipation.
Survey results were compiled into a
database to allow for the synthesis of
crosscutting conclusions from qualita-
tive data. The contractor then worked
closely with ESB staff to interpret these
results.
The following findings were outlined
by the evaluation:
MOST EFFECTIVE ASPECTS OF
PESP
PESP fosters a trusting and open relation-
ship between EPA and the regulated
community. This element is particularly
important for smaller members who do
not have regular contact with EPA.
PESP's member relationships have opened
two-way channels of communication.
Page 51
-------
Various OPP processes have benefited
from the liaisons' contact with knowl-
edgeable users and members of the
regulated community. Liaisons help the
Agency keep the regulated community
involved in the registration process, which
leads to more informed registration
decisions and reduced frustration among
regulated entities.
PESP has been successful in encouraging
members to use specific reduced-risk
pesticides and increasing the acreage under
IPM. PESP is very effective in encouraging
organizations to think about pest
management on alarger scale (i.e., in terms
of safety and health).
AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT
ESB staff, liaisons, and members alike were
interested in improvinginformation
sharingbetween members, either within
their sector or outside ofit. Although five
of the ten members interviewed
indicated that they shared best practices
with other members, and five indicated
that they learned of and implemented
ideas shared by other members,
members indicated that they did not
receive enough information from EPA.
Some PESP members were not dear about
what the program could offer them. Many
organizations joined in the hopes of
securinggrant money; however, once these
members realized that grant money was
not guaranteed to PESP members, they
chose not to stay active in the program.
Over the years, it has become
apparent that command and control
regulation is not the only way to solve
environmental problems. EPA contin-
ues to emphasize a balanced approach to
environmental protection. Voluntary
programs have proven their value as
important tools for reducing risks to
human health and the environment.
The end of 2004 will mark a decade
of OPP's efforts to reduce the risk posed
by pesticide use through voluntary
programs. We hope to continue and
even expand many of the efforts de-
scribed in this report in the years ahead.
The Pesticides in Schools Initiative
is building momentum, and we expect
IPM to be implemented in more schools
and in rnore parts of the country during
Page 52
There was general agreement that PESP
needs to raise the standards to which it
holds its members. Although members
are required to submit strategies, there are a
number of members that fail to do so, and
many more who fail to submit an annual
update.
Based on the findings of the evalua-
tion, the followingrecommendations were
offered:
Align grants to support EPA's risk
reduction priorities. EPA and PESP
members frequently identify mutual
priorities for risk reduction and specific
strategies and projects to address those
priorities. Grants should be targeted to
provide members with opportunities to
fund projects that address PESP's strategic
Create an OPP performance measure-
ment clearinghouse. By gleaning best
practices from PESP Championsand
members, PESP should create a one-stop
source for information related to measuring
the performance of risk-reduction
activities.
Complement liaison guidance with
training seminars. EPA needs to clarify
the specific functions fulfilled by liaisons.
While a liaison's relationship with their
member will depend upon the characteris-
tics of the organization, it would be useful
for liaisons to receive targeted training on
strategy development and measurement
methods.
1 Enhance liaison participation through
increased program support. Liaisons
rarely have direct contact with their
CONCLUSIONS
the next decade.
Similarly, the Lawns and the
Environment Initiative will result in
greater adoption of IPM practices by
lawn care professionals and
homeowners once they are educated of
the risks posed by conventional practices
and the benefits afforded by alternatives.
Outreach through biopesticide
demonstration projects and continued
grower training in IPM will lead to
further reductions in unnecessary
applications and transitions from
conventional pesticides to alternative
biological and reduced-risk chemical
pesticides.
To achieve continued success, EPA
must do its part to provide leadership,
coordination, and sufficient resources.
members. By allocating a portion of OPP
travel budget to liaison travel, EPA would
allow liaisons to fulfill a broader and more
valuable role for members.
1 Reinstate a PESP annual meeting. EPA
should have an annual PESP meeting to
bringmembers and Agency representatives
together in a collaborative and informative
atmosphere.
1 Promote PESP through trade journals.
PESP should advertise in trade journals to
gain visibility and improve credibility.
1 Create searchable database of reduced
risk grant projects. By recording and
sharing the successes of PESP and Strategic
Agricultural Initiative grants, EPA may
foster technology transfer and improve
communication among regulators, research-
ers, and pesticide users.
Ejihance the publicity of PESP
Champion awards. EPA should consider
using other EPA awardprograms (e.g.,
Green Chemistry, WasteWise)as models for
a meaningful and highly visible PESP
promotional tool.
1 Assist members with grant applications.
PESP sector leaders and liaisons should be
trained as on-demand technical editors for
members seeking to develop fundable grant
projects.
1 Consider umbrella memberships for
trade associations. EPA should consider
granting trade associations an "umbrella"
membership that includes all of the
organization'smembers.
ESB has already begun to implement
many of the recommendations of the
evaluation and will carry out other in 2005.
This will enhance our ability to achieve
our goals in the promotion of environ-
mental stewardship, adoption of IPM,
and reduction in the risk of pesticides.
In addition, OPP staff and manage-
ment must look for way s to align the
strategic goals and activities of both its
regulatory and partnership programs.
This will be achieved through enhanced
coordination, communication, and a
shared commitment to workingmore
closely together.
The ultimate success of the program
will largely depend upon the continued
support of our stakeholders, who
volunteer their resources, time, and
talent to further the adoption of IPM and
promote pesticide risk reduction.
-------
ADDRESS: PESP (7511C)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460-0001
WEBSITE: www.EPA.cov/oppBPPDl/PESP
E-MAIL: PESP.INFO@EPA.GOV
INFOLINE: 800-972-7717
YOU MAY REACH ALL EPA PERSONNEL BY E-MAIL AT:
LASTNAME.FIRSTNAME(£}EPA. GOV
DISCLAIMER
Through the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program, EPA is working with its partners on our common
goal of reducing the risks from the use of pesticides. This report relays information provided by partner
organizations on their PESP accomplishments. EPA has not confirmed the accuracy of all information
provided. Mention of organizations, companies, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Page 53
-------
------- |